Pentium M and Yonah Processors in Upcoming Macs?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

With Apple's upcoming move to Intel-based processors in 2006, rumors and news about upcoming Intel processors will creep into Mac sites.

MacCentral kicks (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/08/pentiumm/index.php) it off by citing informed source who claim that Apple will utilize Intel's Pentium M processor (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumm/) for Macintosh computers starting in 2006.

The Pentium M uses the same x86 architecture as the Pentium 4, but consumes far less power than Pentium 4 chips and its design philosophy is expected to be the model for Intel’s future processors. The high performance per watt ratio of the upcoming Pentium M falls in line with the features Steve Jobs cited as reasons for the switch from IBM's PowerPC processor.

eWeek provides (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1825776,00.asp) some additional details and speculation about Intel processors.

The [Pentium M], which currently tops out at 2.13 GHz, typically performs as well or better than all but the fastest Pentium 4 chips, which clock in at 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz, even for applications such as computer-aided design, Intel and analysts say, while consuming roughly a quarter of the amount of power those chips use.Of note, a higher performance Pentium M (Yonah), is reported to arrive later this year. The Yonah is reported to be a dual-core version of the Pentium M using a 65-nanometer process.

More details of the Yonah chip can be found in this article (http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050602_143758.html). Yonah will reportedly be the first mobile dual-core processor as well as the first processor manufactured in the 65-nm process.

For what it's worth, Digitimes is also claiming (http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/MailHome.asp?datePublish=2005/6/9&pages=A2&seq=6) that Yonah will be used by Apple.

[Josh396]

I assumed that these would be the first two chips used, especially the Pentium M. My question is how quickly will they be out in Power Books? I'm hoping for MWSF 06 although it may seem a little early.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

There seems to be consensus that the Pentium Ms are going in the iBook, PowerBook and Mini starting from early 2006, while iMacs and PowerMacs and later Xserves will have to wait for a 64-bits variant coming in 2007...

What I'm a bit confused about is where Pentium D, with the built-in DRM capabilities fit in...

[DeSnousa]

Im sure am looking forward to the future of mac. Those dual cores look intresting. I cant wait to see how well these intel processors will perform on os x.

Thanks arn for keeping us informed over the last week, much appreciated :)

[IDANNY]

Wow cool sounds good. Dose that mean better battery life.

[Dr. Dastardly]

Now can everyone shutup about P4's shipping. I was pretty sure that Apple was going to utilize the Yonah chip and the M for mobile processing.

Anyone else think that the iBook and Powerbook line will be the first to receive the new chips. We need some sort of betting odds on which will be first on what models. :p

[Stella]

Here we go, 50 pages of misguided ***** of how -
- intel sucks
- intel means viruses
- people don't want macs to get over 5% market share.
- macs will be Dell quality machines
- Apple should have gone with IBM's (!!!???)
- apple making osx available on all PCs
- the final demise of Macs

plus other crap that people invent.

Very little insight and factual posts ( judging from the other posts )

Sorry, I'm being pessimistic.

[cubedco]

yay... just about the time i'll want to get a new ibook.... or maybe this time the power/price will push me to the powerbook.

[Edge100]

Man, I'm still not used to seeing the word 'Pentium' and "Mac" in the same sentence, unless its to show how Macs blow Pentiums away.

I remember having the RISC vs. CISC conversation with many PC'ers back in 1994.

Odd how things change!

[sjjordan]

I'll say this...Yonah's ability to turn off a core, and allow the running one to have access to the full 2MB cache, when in battery mode is AWESOME!

[Mr Maui]

Sorry, I'm being pessimistic.
Sounded more like you were being REALISTIC!! ;)

[DeSnousa]

yay... just about the time i'll want to get a new ibook.... or maybe this time the power/price will push me to the powerbook.

You do realize that the first shipments of mactels will be june next year.

[Stella]

Sounded more like you were being REALISTIC!! ;)
LOL, I'm really looking forward to what decent processors are going to be used in apple's laptops.

What ever they are - they will smoke today's current line up.

[Mr Maui]

You do realize that the first shipments of mactels will be june next year.
Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside. :)

[CubaTBird]

all these recent rumors could be lumped into one big ol' rumor... hrm...

[Mr Maui]

LOL, I'm really looking forward to what decent processors are going to be used in apple's laptops.

What ever they are - they will smoke today's current line up.
I believe that whatever Steve and company come up with, it is going to be all Mac ... creative, fast, designed well, useful, and cutting edge. They have rarely disappointed me (unless you count that old Powerbook 5300ce ... what a piece of ... um ... creative uselessness). :D

[~Shard~]

Although it's early, this is promising news - this will hopefully put a lot of people at ease who automatically thought that the Macs would be seeing P4s in them. I'd definitely be happy with an M or Yonah chip in a future Mac.

[Object-X]

If they don't support 64 bit then will they actually go in a Powerbook? It would seem to me that Apple would want 64 bit support for the Powerbook line, but Intel says they aren't going to support it until it's needed. I think it's needed now, don't you?

Powerbook sales are going to drop like a stone until the Intel chips are ready. :(

[Object-X]

Now we have Intel Powerbook rumors to look forward too. :rolleyes:

[Mr Maui]

Powerbook sales are going to drop like a stone until the Intel chips are ready. :(
Then maybe your can get one after the prices drop like stone too ... But I bet you'll be waitin' a looooonnnng time. :rolleyes:

[Stella]

I believe that whatever Steve and company come up with, it is going to be all Mac ... creative, fast, designed well, useful, and cutting edge. They have rarely disappointed me (unless you count that old Powerbook 5300ce ... what a piece of ... um ... creative uselessness). :D

They certainly will , apple will have little excuse.

Roll on the next Gen!

[ailleur]

There seems to be consensus that the Pentium Ms are going in the iBook, PowerBook and Mini starting from early 2006, while iMacs and PowerMacs and later Xserves will have to wait for a 64-bits variant coming in 2007...

What I'm a bit confused about is where Pentium D, with the built-in DRM capabilities fit in...

It doesnt fit in anywhere. The pentium D consumes around 200 Watts
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/intel%20dual%20core%20preview%20part%202_040605110408/6837.png
The 2.8 being the slowest of the pentium D available

Not exactly iin sync with steve's goal of low consumption high efficiency.

[mcarnes]

Man, I'm still not used to seeing the word 'Pentium' and "Mac" in the same sentence, unless its to show how Macs blow Pentiums away.

I remember having the RISC vs. CISC conversation with many PC'ers back in 1994.

Odd how things change!


It was odd to me when Apple went with IBM chips, with the 1984 commercial and all. And Steve feelings about big brother at that time.

It's just the nature of the beast.

[Mpowerbook182]

I think the Ibooks will get a minor speed bump soon, then at mwsf 06 we will get powerbooks with the M chip, I think it will happen similar to this becuse I doubt Apple would give the new chip to the Ibook first, but I could be wrong, just my 2 cents.

Dave

[chatin]

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M)

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

[iBunny]

The Pentium M architecture is outstanding. And Yonah will be an awesome processor.

[Doctor Q]

The [Pentium M], which currently tops out at 2.13 GHz, typically performs as well or better than all but the fastest Pentium 4 chips, which clock in at 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz, even for applications such as computer-aided design, Intel and analysts say, while consuming roughly a quarter of the amount of power those chips use.:( Boo hoo. We'll all be back to explaining the MHz myth, and we don't even have these models yet.

[abluesky]

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M)

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

You are obviously in the minority with this opinion.

[iMeowbot]

Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside. :)
Not a chance. Teh Steve calls them Macintels, so we are all obliged to call them that, at least for a few weeks when the RDF starts to wear off.

[Mr Maui]

Not a chance. Teh Steve calls them Macintels, so we are all obliged to call them that, at least for a few weeks when the RDF starts to wear off.
Did Steve refer to them as Macintels during the keynote? I can honestly say that I don't remember that.

[aegisdesign]

If they don't support 64 bit then will they actually go in a Powerbook? It would seem to me that Apple would want 64 bit support for the Powerbook line, but Intel says they aren't going to support it until it's needed. I think it's needed now, don't you?


You have need for more than 4GB of RAM in a laptop now?

[aussiemac86]

I think the Ibooks will get a minor speed bump soon, then at mwsf 06 we will get powerbooks with the M chip, I think it will happen similar to this becuse I doubt Apple would give the new chip to the Ibook first, but I could be wrong, just my 2 cents.

Dave

Yeh PB will be first of the laptops definately, and I doubt they would put it in the mac mini or emac before portables.

[Mr Maui]

You have need for more than 4GB of RAM in a laptop now?
Doesn't everyone? You'd sure think so the way many are whining about the "complete uselessness" of the present Powerbook line. I wish people would remember back 2 or 3 years ago and they'd realize that the present Powerbook line is quite nice by comparison. Powerbooks are designed for usefulness AND portability ... NOT to completely replace the biggest and baddest desktops that don't need to fit in a 1" think casing and be carried around over your shoulder.

[abluesky]

Here's a good read. Probably has been posted before.

A Pentium M (2.56 Ghz) beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-21.html

Looks very promising to me!

[toneloco2881]

You do realize that the first shipments of mactels will be june next year.
Says who? Steve Jobs said he would like to have Intel Macs in the "marketplace" by the next wwdc. The Intel Yonah chips are scheduled for release in the first quarter of next year. I wouldn't be surprised to se an announcement at MWSF.

[Lunja]

Grrr- I'd just about made up my mind about the upcoming PB purchase... lol :D

My dilemma is whether to buy a top-spec PB now so it can be sold for a decent price 2nd hand when these come out, or spend a little less on an iBook and get one of these when they come out, or wait, or... or... or... but anyway, here is not the place for that kind of thing :)

I gather that the Yonah chip is likely to head for Powerbooks... Sounds like good news to me! A dual-core sitting in a slim alu enclosure... ;)

Personally, I think the wider range of chips that Intel offer will help to differentiate the PB and iB lines - the iBook is gagging for an update, the narrow gap between that and the PB can finally be opened up to provide a wider product range...

Can't wait for 15" dual-core PB...

PS. I'm only a newbie, so feel free to flame me if any of this is wrong and I'll edit it ;)

[aegisdesign]

Hanibal over at ArsTechnica has a nice piece about what he thinks the future will yield. I'd say he's spot on unless Intel and Apple have something else up their sleeves. Typically, Intel are open about future processsors so I'd think not.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars/1

[bentoon]

I read an article about Apples real message to developers:
Use XCode and Apple can automatically recompile your code for Intel/IBM/AMD or whatever may be the best chip for the best job in the future.

Some intels shall be yielding dual core chips for the powerbooks (3Ghz) sometime in 2006

Apple is free to use IBM chips in PowerMacs

or whatever other chip they now may use whenever,

etc etc...

is very fortunate,
& the iPod will keep them afloat until people start to see the light

[Mr Maui]

I gather that the Yonah chip is likely to head for Powerbooks... Sounds like good news to me! A dual-core sitting in a slim alu enclosure...
It is my guess that there will be a design change to go with the new processor insertions. May still be aluminum, but I'd bet some design change will occur to distinguish the new line.

[orion123]

You should all read this. It's a fantastic overview of where Intel is going and where Apple might jump on board. Sounds like the Pentium M is (like was said) going to be the first out the door and that Pentium D is the end of the "big, powerhungry, MHz-obsessed Intel chips" we're used to, and that Apple will skip it.

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050608.ars

[tsk]

One thing I'm curious on is:

When Apple is using Intel CPU's, will they go through all this hoopla to release a new CPU speed, or will they include upgrades to faster chips as they are available (and tested to Apple's liking)?

Seems like they ought to be able to just upgrade CPU's mid product cycle now. Hopefully at least.

[Lunja]

It is my guess that there will be a design change to go with the new processor insertions. May still be aluminum, but I'd bet some design change will occur to distinguish the new line.


Bit obvious really. I should have thought for a bit longer... :rolleyes: :D

By the time these come out, Apple will be busy preparing for the launch of Leopard, right when Microsoft starts promoting Longoverdue... A new design + Yonah + big advertising campaign = a growing market share for Apple...

Welcome to the begining of tomorrow, Apple fans...

[tdewey]

Yonah also has Vanderpool technology which allows multiple OS to run simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderpool
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/

Forget dual boot. Run MacOSX and XP and Linux at the same time.

[Mr Maui]

Bit obvious really. I should have thought for a bit longer... :rolleyes: :D

By the time these come out, Apple will be busy preparing for the launch of Leopard, right when Microsoft starts promoting Longoverdue... A new design + Yonah + big advedrtising campaign = a growing market share for Apple...

Welcome to the begining of tomorrow, Apple fans...
Or the end of their existence if you listen to the naysayers!! :eek:

[sethypoo]

Personally, I hope they use the Intel Pentium D processors in Macintosh desktops; the Pentium M's will work well for PowerBooks and iBooks, but the frontside bus is only 400Mhz, a far cry from the 1.35Ghz FSB of the dual 2.7Ghz G5, or even the 667Mhz FSB of the 2.0 Ghz G5 in the iMac G5.

If Apple is going to make this move to Intel work, they need to either equal their current processor speeds or increase them.

[Surreal]

having taken this much time to digest the news, i think i can state clearly my real issue with this switch;

i understand the reasons for switching..production problems and no plan for mobile chips on ibms part...

but losing the g5 in the powermacs sucks in my opinion. Logic and Final cut run like beasts on it, and while i dont think intel will suck, i DO think that, in those applications, the G5 will be hard to beat. i WANT them to support both processors..but that would be foolish...i look forward to a pentium M po9werbook..as odd as the prospect feels, but what will replace the g5?...i almost want to buy a g5 powermac to have one before they stop selling, but then in 4 years the ppc will be phased out. man, decisions.

[MacFan782040]

I don't knwo if anyone said this already..but...

While this is good, it still might pose some problems:

example: People see 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 PC compared to 2.13 GHz Pentium M Mac... and they see that the PC is "faster"... and it even has the same processor so I don't know if they megahertz myth would work in this situation... we'll see what happenes...

[bentoon]

Yonah also has Vanderpool technology which allows multiple OS to run simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderpool
http://www.intel.com/technology/computing/vptech/

Forget dual boot. Run MacOSX and XP and Linux at the same time.


A slightly new design (perhaps a tablet...)
FASTER -Dualcore Yonahs
Powerbooks running 2 operating systems

I'm shivering

[reyesmac]

With all these fast new chips that will be out a year and two from now, my only worry is that Apple will still cripple bus speeds, ram limits and Vram. I just hope that the ones that they end up using on their lower end systems will more than compete with whatever is out there for evenly priced PC systems... and that they are updated twice a year. It will be harder for Apple to skimp I think when you can get a lot of PC for $1000 and up. I think we might see a lot of exiting things from Apple now. Sort of like the days when all the Macs went from beige to colors. I think Apple will shake things up again now that speed won't hold them back. It is a great time to be a Mac user despite the bumpy road ahead.

[Mr Maui]

i WANT them to support both processors..but that would be foolish...
Foolish? They support two different processors now ... from IBM and Freescale. you never know what they future will hold. Time will tell. Remember ... "3 GHz in a year" never materialized ... "transition almost complete by the end of 2007" could go south too if things don't run just perfectly for Intel. One never knows. ;)

[ailleur]

Personally, I hope they use the Intel Pentium D processors in Macintosh desktops; the Pentium M's will work well for PowerBooks and iBooks, but the frontside bus is only 400Mhz, a far cry from the 1.35Ghz FSB of the dual 2.7Ghz G5, or even the 667Mhz FSB of the 2.0 Ghz G5 in the iMac G5.

If Apple is going to make this move to Intel work, they need to either equal their current processor speeds or increase them.

See the cpu as a black box and stop caring how its inners work.
The Pentium M is faster, period.

And please PLEASE dont compare speed to performance, i thought mac people were the one that wanted to kill the mhz myth? A 2.5ghz pentium M will DESTROY a pentium at 4ghz

[tdewey]

Personally, I hope they use the Intel Pentium D processors in Macintosh desktops; the Pentium M's will work well for PowerBooks and iBooks, but the frontside bus is only 400Mhz, a far cry from the 1.35Ghz FSB of the dual 2.7Ghz G5, or even the 667Mhz FSB of the 2.0 Ghz G5 in the iMac G5.

If Apple is going to make this move to Intel work, they need to either equal their current processor speeds or increase them.


http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-01.html

Pentium-M is just awesome.

[dontmatter]

I thought this should go without saying, honestly. But, glad to hear it confirmed. It's the logical move, for sure, given steves remarks, apples' market share, and the processors and companies involved. Of course apple would go with the cool technology of yenoah, or whatever it is!

Personally, I'm still a little worried about the transitions=loss in market share phenomanon, but then again, hey, perhaps that's why this is scheduled around the release of longhorn, so there's new and uncertain no matter what in computers.

Man, I can't wait, though. Given the excellent cooling and form factors mac engineers have been capable of with their exremely hot chips (how thin PB's are, mac mini, imac having a virtual furnace in there, and powermacs having two) compared to many windows counterparts... I'd betcha we will get some AWESOME computers when they're running cool and efficient M's.

Shrink the form factor or double the number of chips.... plus being made on 65 nm process? gonna be sweet.

[joeconvert]

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M)

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

The Pentium M was a different direction of progression post Pentium III. It is highly optimized and very efficient design from Intel Israel.

It is an outstanding processor. I have a Dell X300 form the company. I believe it is a 1.5GHz if I recall correctly, it really kills my 1.5GHz Powerbook. It's kind of sad, especially given the major video card advantage my Powerbook has over the X300.

And it looks like your link is one more nail in the wikipedia coffin.

[MacG]

The [Pentium M], which currently tops out at 2.13 GHz, typically performs as well or better than all but the fastest Pentium 4 chips, which clock in at 3.6GHz and 3.8GHz, even for applications such as computer-aided design, Intel and analysts say, while consuming roughly a quarter of the amount of power those chips use.

So much for the end of the MHz myth! :p

[sethypoo]

See the cpu as a black box and stop caring how its inners work.
The Pentium M is faster, period.

And please PLEASE dont compare speed to performance, i thought mac people were the one that wanted to kill the mhz myth? A 2.5ghz pentium M will DESTROY a pentium at 4ghz

Yes but only if that Pentium M's FSB is waaaaay faster than the Pentium 4's. Which it currently isn't so it is NOT as fast as a P4 with a 800Mhz FSB.

The day I stop caring about how the "inners" of a CPU work is the day I become a quadriplegic. The "inners" are everything for a CPU! :rolleyes:

[ailleur]

Yes but only if that Pentium M's FSB is waaaaay faster than the Pentium 4's. Which it currently isn't so it is NOT as fast as a P4 with a 800Mhz FSB.

The day I stop caring about how the "inners" of a CPU work is the day I become a quadriplegic. The "inners" are everything for a CPU! :rolleyes:

If i build a cpu that works on a 1mhz fsb but does 3x the work a g5 does, you wont buy it cause of its low fsb? End results are what matters, not one of the variable.

The pentium m is faster than the pentium 4, its faster than the pentium 4 EE, its faster than the athlon fx, and that is a fact

http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-1.png
http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-2.png
http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-6.png
http://x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/dothan/bench2-7.png

[dontmatter]

I don't knwo if anyone said this already..but...

While this is good, it still might pose some problems:

example: People see 3.8 GHz Pentium 4 PC compared to 2.13 GHz Pentium M Mac... and they see that the PC is "faster"... and it even has the same processor so I don't know if they megahertz myth would work in this situation... we'll see what happenes...

Yeah, but PC companies will also be using pentium M's. So they go, hmm, here's the sexy mac pentium M at 2.13, or the fugly dell with same proc running windows for 200 bucks less....

[tdewey]

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M)

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.


Which is of course why Intel is basing their entire new line of chips in 2006, 2007 and beyond on the Pentium-M and dumping the P4 netburst architecture.

[rockthecasbah]

While everyone is saying "oh it tops out at 2.13ghz" and that stuff, that is NOW, correct? If i am not mistaken, Apple won't start using intel chips until 2006. Speeds may increase by then because we have no idea when in 2006 it will be! Look, I'd be happy with a 2.13ghz anyway if it's a Pentium M, just some food for thought. I say Powerbooks are first to be updated if both Powerbooks and iBooks aren't updated.

[sethypoo]

If i build a cpu that works on a 1mhz fsb but does 3x the work a g5 does, you wont buy it cause of its low fsb? End results are what matters, not one of the variable.

I would buy the Pentium M if it were in the 65nm form and if it were dual core. Then it WOULD kick the P4's and the Athlons butts. But who's to say the P4 isn't going to get a major overhaul? We'll just have to see.

65nm.....drool

[Surreal]

Foolish? They support two different processors now ... from IBM and Freescale. you never know what they future will hold. <snip>

i meant it would be foolish to expect them to optimize for G5 and whatever intel processor replaces it. that would be wonderful, and if they did it, then they COULD seel a retail version of the mac os for x86 and still sell high end hardware. ...well..it's ONE way to look at it. LoL

[tdewey]

Yes but only if that Pentium M's FSB is waaaaay faster than the Pentium 4's. Which it currently isn't so it is NOT as fast as a P4 with a 800Mhz FSB.

The day I stop caring about how the "inners" of a CPU work is the day I become a quadriplegic. The "inners" are everything for a CPU! :rolleyes:

Already posted above:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-01.html

The P-M is faster then the P4 and Athlon for almost all tasks.

[Freakk123]

It's amazing... Here is the the progression of my feelings towards Mactel (Feeling in red):

First: Article in the WSJ reignites Mac-Intel rumors. Skeptical, Negative

Next: More rumors. Skeptical, Negative. I fight the rumors off.

Then: c|net confirms WSJ article. Negative, half hoping they're wrong, half interested in what this means

WWDC: Apple officially announces Mactel. Confused, Suddenly Excited. Neutral/Slightly optimistic

Now: More and more information is piling in. I'm getting mroe and more excited, intrigued, and I believe more and more that this will be a great move. I can't wait for my first Mactel (Hopefully a powerbook)

Seriously, the more info I get the more excited I get. While as long as I build PC's I'll use AMD's, I've accepted that Intel is not pure evil. This is a big turning point in my life.

[Mr Maui]

Which is of course why Intel is basing their entire new line of chips in 2006, 2007 and beyond on the Pentium-M and dumping the P4 netburst architecture.
That must make Intel really stupid ... converting their whole line to a slower and more useless processor ... no?!?!? chatin?!?!?!? ;) <the comments we hear out here> sheesh!

[tdewey]

I would buy the Pentium M if it were in the 65nm form and if it were dual core. Then it WOULD kick the P4's and the Athlons butts. But who's to say the P4 isn't going to get a major overhaul? We'll just have to see.

65nm.....drool

Intel has already annouced its roadmap. P4 is dead. P-M is king. Yonah, Merom, Conroe, Woodcrest, Whitefield, etc. All the new chips coming out in 2006, 2007 and beyond are based on P-M arch. P4 (netburst) arch hit the wall with Prescott.

Don't take my word for it search on Google.

[BornAgainMac]

Perhaps the eMac and iMac consumer macs can use the 3.8 fake-a-hz regular Pentium 4 cpus because they sound fast. The pro Macs can use the real Pentium M processors for speed running at the lower 2.5 Ghz speed.

[Mr Maui]

i meant it would be foolish to expect them to optimize for G5 and whatever intel processor replaces it. that would be wonderful, and if they did it, then they COULD seel a retail version of the mac os for x86 and still sell high end hardware. ...well..it's ONE way to look at it. LoL
Well ... keep in mind ... OSX has been living a "now not-so-secret double-life" for 5 years now, and will likely continue to do so until Steve decides that the PowerPC is officially done ... and ... the majority of PowerPCs already in existence have died off too. JMO

[Chip NoVaMac]

I am starting to warm up to the idea of the Macintel. My concern is for Apple as a computer company, and the ability to charge premium prices as they do now for the PPC systems. The consumer when the switch is done to the Intel chips, will only look at the companies offering the same chip and what the systems offer hardware wise. The PPC chip allowed Apple to be "different" in pricing. A consumer will not be willing IMO to spend hundreds more for the Apple/OS X experience. Will Apple be able to live with lower margins on their end? The margins for the resellers already stink.

[runninmac]

Here's a good read. Probably has been posted before.

A Pentium M (2.56 Ghz) beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-21.html

Looks very promising to me!

That is [expletive deleted] amazing! And now with Dual cores??? All i can say and hope for is WOW!!!

[dontmatter]

Foolish? They support two different processors now ... from IBM and Freescale. you never know what they future will hold. Time will tell. Remember ... "3 GHz in a year" never materialized ... "transition almost complete by the end of 2007" could go south too if things don't run just perfectly for Intel. One never knows. ;)

So here's my take. A bit off topic, mind you.

yeah, mac's support two different processors now. But really, those are very similar, and the amazing thing is, apple's been supporting two completely different architectures, little did we know. When software is updated for x86, it's actually not (from what I can tell) much updated for x86, but to be processor independent.

My hope is, apple keeps up this old habit of a secret backup architecture, and sets it all up so we are completely processor independent. So then, if there's a powerpc controlled cell derivitive from IBM, no problem, it doesn't involve a transition, they'll carry those and intel at the same time. If AMD doesn something cool, no optimization needed, they just need to buy the chips.

That's my hope. Because wouldn't it be funny if intel went the way IBM did for apple, and IBM took it's console expertise and turned it into an awesome PC chip, but microsoft couldn't support anything but X86?

yeah....

just dreaming.

[Lunja]

Time for some newbie questions...

What is the significance of 65nM? To be honest, I don't have a clue... :)

And also if the Yonah is a dual-core chip, will each core require its own RAM or will they be able to 'share' it? Would 1Gb be 512mb to each core, or could the RAM usage vary according to the task undertaken by each core?

Sorry if this all seems a bit preschool, but I'm fairly new... :)

[Stella]

I see can the reaction to ( clueless) Mac users now upon release:

"BUT these Intel processors are SLOWER than the previous IBM G5's, WHAT are apple thinking about.. SJ is a wa?ker, useless... Apple are dead.. .I'm not using Apple, Apple betrayed me, blah blah blah..."


Perhaps the eMac and iMac consumer macs can use the 3.8 fake-a-hz regular Pentium 4 cpus because they sound fast. The pro Macs can use the real Pentium M processors for speed running at the lower 2.5 Ghz speed.

[Mr Maui]

yeah, mac's support two different processors now. But really, those are very similar, and the amazing thing is, apple's been supporting two completely different architectures, little did we know. When software is updated for x86, it's actually not (from what I can tell) much updated for x86, but to be processor independent.

My hope is, apple keeps up this old habit of a secret backup architecture, and sets it all up so we are completely processor independent. So then, if there's a powerpc controlled cell derivitive from IBM, no problem, it doesn't involve a transition, they'll carry those and intel at the same time. If AMD doesn something cool, no optimization needed, they just need to buy the chips.

That's my hope. Because wouldn't it be funny if intel went the way IBM did for apple, and IBM took it's console expertise and turned it into an awesome PC chip, but microsoft couldn't support anything but X86?
Steve Jobs told the developers at WWDC to start writing (for those who were not already), or to convert their present apps to xCode, which, if my undertanding is correct, is processor independent ... meaning it will work on PowerPC or Intel. Feel free to correct me if my understanding is in error. I am willing to learn. Really!!! :D

[iMeowbot]

Did Steve refer to them as Macintels during the keynote? I can honestly say that I don't remember that.
The NYT reported on Monday that he used the term. They didn't say when.

[ailleur]

Time for some newbie questions...

What is the significance of 65nM? To be honest, I don't have a clue... :)

And also if the Yonah is a dual-core chip, will each core require its own RAM or will they be able to 'share' it? Would 1Gb be 512mb to each core, or could the RAM usage vary according to the task undertaken by each core?

Sorry if this all seems a bit preschool, but I'm fairly new... :)


A shrink in the chip process (in this case 90nm to 65nm) usually leads to lower power consumption and improves the scalability of the chip. In other words, higher mhz at lower temp.


A dual core chip does not require its own ram any more than a dual cpu system requires 2 sets of ram.

[bentoon]

I am starting to warm up to the idea of the Macintel. My concern is for Apple as a computer company, and the ability to charge premium prices as they do now for the PPC systems. The consumer when the switch is done to the Intel chips, will only look at the companies offering the same chip and what the systems offer hardware wise. The PPC chip allowed Apple to be "different" in pricing. A consumer will not be willing IMO to spend hundreds more for the Apple/OS X experience. Will Apple be able to live with lower margins on their end? The margins for the resellers already stink.

It will allow them to have a wider range of Macs
They don't ONLY have to use Intel chips. They may keep IBM or ADM chips for higher end. Rermember, with xCode, it's justt a button click to recompile so when things get ported they can then use any processor their heart desires

[evilbert420]

You have to be careful with those benchmarks from Tom's Hardware.

Those are measuring the Dothan chips, but they're not all the same chipsets.

Current Pentium-Ms are using the Alviso chipset, which improves things substantially (DDR2, PCI express, faster FSB).

[Mr Maui]

I see can the reaction to ( clueless) Mac users now upon release:

"BUT these Intel processors are SLOWER than the previous IBM G5's, WHAT are apple thinking about.. SJ is a wa?ker, useless... Apple are dead.. .I'm not using Apple, Apple betrayed me, blah blah blah..."
Then here is my response to those people ... "Then jump to the ever-reliable Wintels and live in the fantasy world of MHz myths and Winderz again." :p

[runninmac]

While everyone is saying "oh it tops out at 2.13ghz" and that stuff, that is NOW, correct? If i am not mistaken, Apple won't start using intel chips until 2006. Speeds may increase by then because we have no idea when in 2006 it will be! Look, I'd be happy with a 2.13ghz anyway if it's a Pentium M, just some food for thought. I say Powerbooks are first to be updated if both Powerbooks and iBooks aren't updated.

According to Appleinsider it should have 2.16 Dual Core Prosessers by the time apple gets them >http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1123

[pgwalsh]

Using the Pentium M. Guess it'll still be a while before we hit that 3 Ghz mark. :rolleyes: :p

[ailleur]

Using the Pentium M. Guess it'll still be a while before we hit that 3 Ghz mark. :rolleyes: :p

We could say "equivalent to 3ghz ( or more likely 3.5 =P ) of g5 power", problem solved!

[Mr Maui]

Using the Pentium M. Guess it'll still be a while before we hit that 3 Ghz mark. :rolleyes: :p
But we just might get 2 GHz and/or dual core in a Powerbook sooner ... so there is a positive side!! :D

[JesterJJZ]

Anyone have any thought on if we will still be getting dual processor models with the intel chips? Or just dual cores?

[ailleur]

Anyone have any thought on if we will still be getting dual processor models with the intel chips? Or just dual cores?

Pentium 4, or in this case, consumer oriented cpus, have not been able to run in dual cpu config since the pentium III's. I dont know if the pentium M are able to work in dual cpu configs.

[arn]

According to Appleinsider it should have 2.16 Dual Core Prosessers by the time apple gets them >http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1123

no, that's according to Digitimes.

http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/MailHome.asp?datePublish=2005/6/9&pages=A2&seq=6

arn

[riversky]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Interesting points made in the opinion piece.

Looks like the gist of it is Intel buy Apple and becomes far more innovative and dominate than Microsoft.

Interesting given the fact that I too believe this is all about DRM!!!

[iMeowbot]

Steve Jobs told the developers at WWDC to start writing (for those who were not already), or to convert their present apps to xCode,
For some Carbon applications on Codewarrior, especially the ones that have been around since the 68K days, this is going to involve a lot of pain. CW includes a lot of crutches to hide some differences between the old toolbox and Carbon. I've got some inherited stuff that hasn't even been converted to use modern Navigation Services (hangs head in shame), and that's gonna hurt.
which, if my undertanding is correct, is processor independent ...
The development environment is portable, sure. GCC, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to allow non-portable code to be written (it's just C after all), and having code that successfully compiles is nowhere at all near the same as having code that runs correctly. That's going to be the painful part, ensuring that the PowerPC and Intel binaries behave exactly the same way.

[ailleur]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Interesting points made in the opinion piece.

Looks like the gist of it is Intel buy Apple and becomes far more innovative and dominate than Microsoft.

Interesting given the fact that I too believe this is all about DRM!!!

That article is actually a huge pile of crap
Allow me to quote a post on slashdot since i dont feel like typing it all

>Question 1: What happened to the PowerPC's supposed performance advantage over Intel?

Dissapearing as we speak and that is part of the reason for the move.

>Question 2: What happened to Apple's 64-bit operating system?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16819116198 [newegg.com]
intel Pentium 4 630 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
$289 NOTE the EMT64T.

The Chip in the dev platform is reportedly:
Nntel Pentium 4 660 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T
Again note the EM64T

>Question 3: Where the heck is AMD?
To me this is the lamest question people ask. There are so many reason that it would be a much bigger surprise if it were AMD. Want some:

0: Better deal, simpler engineering if you stick with one.
1: Intel provides the whole platform from a single vendor. Massively simplifying engineering the new platform
2: The myriad of reasons that Dell does the same. Most of them Dollars.
3: Pentium-M Laptop platform.
4: Truly massive Fab capacity, vs AMD history of production problems.

>Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
As said before Developers. Because there is no other way you can give ALL the developers a heads up and keep it a secret.

[Mr Maui]

For some Carbon applications on Codewarrior, especially the ones that have been around since the 68K days, this is going to involve a lot of pain. CW includes a lot of crutches to hide some differences between the old toolbox and Carbon. I've got some inherited stuff that hasn't even been converted to use modern Navigation Services (hangs head in shame), and that's gonna hurt.
Can you give me examples of Carbon apps from the 68K days that people still NEED to be running today? 68K was a decade or more ago.

[iMeowbot]

Can you give me examples of Carbon apps from the 68K days that people still NEED to be running today? 68K was a decade or more ago.
NewsWatcher.

[Mr Maui]

NewsWatcher.
Never heard of it. Is that MT-NewsWatcher (I did a web search)? They appear to have it for OSX (see link below) ... but it is written in really old Code?? Sorry ... forgive my ignorance on this subject ... I'd really like to understand.

http://www.smfr.org/mtnw/downloading.html

[iMeowbot]

Never heard of it. Is that MT-NewsWatcher (I did a web search)?
Yes, that's another fork of the same code base.
They appear to have it for OSX (see link below) ... but it is written in really old Code??
The code base (originally from Apple!) goes back about 15 years.

[Mr Maui]

Yes, that's another fork of the same code base.

The code base (originally from Apple!) goes back about 15 years.
Thanks, that helps a bit ... kinda like the Mathematica comments about some of the code it contains going back to the Reagan administration, huh? :)

[iMeowbot]

Thanks, that helps a bit ... kinda like the Mathematica comments about some of the code it contains going back to the Reagan administration, huh? :)
Yeah, and when you use the same program for a decade or longer it's really, really hard to let it go, especially when there really isn't a newer replacement that works the same way.

I mean, this isn't causing anyone financial woe or anything, the version I'm looking at here is something that only a few friends use. But the Intel transition is probably going to kill it for good, and that's like .... a bummer.

[Anarcho-Commie]

It's amazing... Here is the the progression of my feelings towards Mactel (Feeling in red):

First: Article in the WSJ reignites Mac-Intel rumors. Skeptical, Negative

Next: More rumors. Skeptical, Negative. I fight the rumors off.

Then: c|net confirms WSJ article. Negative, half hoping they're wrong, half interested in what this means

WWDC: Apple officially announces Mactel. Confused, Suddenly Excited. Neutral/Slightly optimistic

Now: More and more information is piling in. I'm getting mroe and more excited, intrigued, and I believe more and more that this will be a great move. I can't wait for my first Mactel (Hopefully a powerbook)

Seriously, the more info I get the more excited I get. While as long as I build PC's I'll use AMD's, I've accepted that Intel is not pure evil. This is a big turning point in my life.


because it takes a while for the effects of the kool-aid to kick in.

[weezer160]

Here we go, 50 pages of misguided ***** of how -
- intel sucks
- intel means viruses
- people don't want macs to get over 5% market share.
- macs will be Dell quality machines
- Apple should have gone with IBM's (!!!???)
- apple making osx available on all PCs
- the final demise of Macs

plus other crap that people invent.

Very little insight and factual posts ( judging from the other posts )

Sorry, I'm being pessimistic.

i don't even know where to start taking apart your ideas... i'll leave that to the other informed mac heads

[pont]

If you have the time (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html) a good and interesting artical in macs switch to intel (seesh I should be doing work) He states in the artical that the pentum-M isn't 64-bit, but via the time the Mactels come out to the consumer I bleave it will. Or sencerly hope it will.

Just noticed someone already posted it :P

[swissmann]

This is a key thing to point out. It is now where IBM and Intel (and others) are now but where they are going and how fast they are getting there. Besides by prepping for Intel Apple could use AMD as well. I wonder more about the 32 and 64 bit side of things.

[scu]

If they don't support 64 bit then will they actually go in a Powerbook? It would seem to me that Apple would want 64 bit support for the Powerbook line, but Intel says they aren't going to support it until it's needed. I think it's needed now, don't you?

Powerbook sales are going to drop like a stone until the Intel chips are ready. :(

Agreed. Unless Apple upgrades the Powerbooks to a faster chip (the 1.8 range) or twicks Tiger to increase its speed without upgrading the chip.

Now the Intel is part of the picture news in regard to future chips will leak like crazy. Apple better come up with some great device or a kick ass PowerMac to make up for a decrease in sales.

[go4d1]

I want to hear Steve say one thing: The intel motherboard will be interchangeable with the current G5 Model.

How great would it be if we could keep the existing chassis, video card, drives, and just swap out the motherboards?

:) :rolleyes:

[JackSYi]

Can't wait till the Rev. B or C of the dual core PowerBook comes out, getting one. This is exciting times for Apple you guys.

[MacEyeDoc]

A shrink in the chip process (in this case 90nm to 65nm) usually leads to lower power consumption and improves the scalability of the chip. In other words, higher mhz at lower temp.


A dual core chip does not require its own ram any more than a dual cpu system requires 2 sets of ram.

Yea, that's what happened with those IBM chips - they went from 90nm to 65nm and got - hotter! This is something that really bothers me about this move. Apple is betting that Intel will make these great chips for them, but they don't have them yet. To borrow that movie phrase - "Show me the chips!" Intel doesn't have them, just like IBM doesn't. I would have preferred Apple just saying that they would run their OS on the fastest chip they could find, IBM, AMD, Intel, Freescale, whatever. Why are we always waiting for a faster chip that no one ever seems to be able to produce?

[scu]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Interesting points made in the opinion piece.

Looks like the gist of it is Intel buy Apple and becomes far more innovative and dominate than Microsoft.

Interesting given the fact that I too believe this is all about DRM!!!

I am not sure I agree with his view of Intel buying Apple, however he makes some very convincing agruments in regards to other areas. Especially in regards to decrease sales.

Personally if Apple came out with a dual core PowerMac or a 3 GHZ system within the next 6 months I would still buy one. I believe many loyal Apple users will continue to buy the G5 if the price is right and it much faster than what we have today.

I just can not see Apple not introducing faster PowerMacs between now and 2007 when I suspect the PowerMacs will get the Intel chips. In the mean time there are millions who already have the professional software and will be very hesitant to upgrade to the Intel machines and deal with emulators or buy new rewritten versions.

[pont]

>Question 4: Why announce this chip swap a year before it will even begin for customers?
As said before Developers. Because there is no other way you can give ALL the developers a heads up and keep it a secret

damn good point :P

Can't wait till the Rev. B or C of the dual core PowerBook comes out, getting one. This is exciting times for Apple you guys.

You can get duel core powerpcs too (not from apple)

Can you give me examples of Carbon apps from the 68K days that people still NEED to be running today? 68K was a decade or more ago.

Carbon wasn't only on the 68k, OS 9 ran on a powerpc..

2006 will be an interseting year, and by late 2006 I think it will be clear if Apple made the right decision ( I think they did, since I don't think they could get there hands on the cell chip).

I wonder if you installed Darwin on a cell if you could then attempt to put all the osx stuff ontop of it ?, with multiple operating systems able to run off the same cpu you could have a bitching PS3 :P and no lack of games...

But I would think unless osx was reacompiled it wouldn't take full advantage of a cell, since it would just uterlise the PPU and no SPU

[chatin]

Agreed. Unless Apple upgrades the Powerbooks to a faster chip (the 1.8 range) or twicks Tiger to increase its speed without upgrading the chip.

Now the Intel is part of the picture news in regard to future chips will leak like crazy. Apple better come up with some great device or a kick ass PowerMac to make up for a decrease in sales.

Pentium M will never be 64-bit or dual capable. The EMT64 spec requires a RISC CPU, the M is a hybrid - at best. That's probably why the keynote and the transition kits ignore 64-bit.

Unlike the G5, the cache memory on a Pentium does not run at the same speed as the CPU. Xeon is more like the G5, because of a vastly superior cache. IMHO, putting a Pentium anything in a Mac is going backwards.

[ailleur]

Yea, that's what happened with those IBM chips - they went from 90nm to 65nm and got - hotter! This is something that really bothers me about this move. Apple is betting that Intel will make these great chips for them, but they don't have them yet. To borrow that movie phrase - "Show me the chips!" Intel doesn't have them, just like IBM doesn't. I would have preferred Apple just saying that they would run their OS on the fastest chip they could find, IBM, AMD, Intel, Freescale, whatever. Why are we always waiting for a faster chip that no one ever seems to be able to produce?

Intel doesnt NEED a new chip now, their 90nm still has a lot of life in it since overclockers will take a dothan pentium m of any model and crack it up to 2.7-2.8ghz on air cooling.

As for the hotter part, thats also what happened when intel went from 120nm to 90nm or from northwood to prescott. Thats when the **** hit the fan, as we say, the cpu was hotter and a lesser performer (due to other factors than the die shrink)

[plinden]

That must make Intel really stupid ... converting their whole line to a slower and more useless processor ... no?!?!? chatin?!?!?!? ;) <the comments we hear out here> sheesh!
Ach, he's just a noob - ignore him. Anyone who knows anything about Intel cpus knows that the PIIIs were faster than P4s for the same clock cycles, but Intel were pushing the MHz myth back then and didn't think they would reach high enough clock speeds (ignoring performance) with the PIIIs.

Quotes from the Wikipedia article he linked to:
The Pentium M represents a radical departure for Intel, as it is not a low-power version of the desktop-oriented Pentium 4, but instead a heavily modified version of the Pentium III design (itself based on the Pentium Pro core design). It is optimised for power efficiency, a vital characteristic for extending notebook computer battery life. Running with very low average power consumption and much lower heat output than desktop processors, the Pentium M runs at a lower clock speed than the contemporary Pentium 4 desktop processor series, but with similar performance (e.g. a 1.6 GHz Pentium M can typically attain or exceed the performance of a 2.4 GHz Northwood Pentium 4 [FSB 400 (100 MHz quad-pumped)], no Hyper-Threading Technology).

The Pentium M couples the execution core of the Pentium III with a Pentium 4 compatible bus interface, an improved instruction decoding/issuing front end, improved branch prediction, SSE,SSE2 and (from Yonah onwards) SSE3 support, and a larger cache. The usually power-hungry secondary cache uses an innovative access method to avoid switching on any parts of it not being accessed.

The next incarnation of the Pentium M, codenamed Yonah, taped out in mid-September 2004 and is due to ship in late 2005 for volume introduction in early 2006. Yonah is a dual-core design targeted for manufacturing on a 65 nm process, and will be Intel's first dual-core processor designed from scratch.

Yonah consists of two cores based on the Banias/Dothan microarchitecture, a 2MB L2 cache shared by both cores, and an arbiter bus that controls L2 cache and FSB access. Floating point performance has been drastically improved through the addition of SSE3 instructions and improvements to SSE and SSE2 implementations. Yonah also includes Vanderpool (VT) virtualization technology and the ability to disable one core to conserve power.

Yonah is expected to launch at 2.13 GHz with a Front side bus speed of 667 MHz (166 MHz quad-pumped). A single core version will be marketed under the Celeron M brand.

[ailleur]

Pentium M will never be 64-bit or dual capable. The EMT64 spec requires a RISC CPU, the M is a hybrid - at best. That's probably why the keynote and the transition kits ignore 64-bit.

Unlike the G5, the cache memory on a Pentium does not run at the same speed as the CPU. Xeon is more like the G5, because of a vastly superior cache. IMHO, putting a Pentium anything in a Mac is going backwards.

What in the hell are you smoking, the cache on pentiums has been full core since pentium 3's. That means the last cpu to NOT have full cache were socket pentium 2's, back in 1995. Way to keep up.

As far as not running 64bit capable, thats pretty funny, since the pentium is a cisc cpu, which renders your whole argument quite worthless.

[pont]

Pentium M will never be 64-bit or dual capable. The EMT64 spec requires a RISC CPU, the M is a hybrid - at best. That's probably why the keynote and the transition kits ignore 64-bit.

Unlike the G5, the cache memory on a Pentium does not run at the same speed as the CPU. Xeon is more like the G5, because of a vastly superior cache. IMHO, putting a Pentium anything in a Mac is going backwards.

Yes it will (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21666)

[illumin8]

Let me just be the first to say....

Dual-Core G6 PowerBooks on Tuesday!!!

:D :D :D :D

[nagromme]

Pentium M --> Dual-core Yonah --> 64-bit dual-core Merom

I'm liking the idea of a Merom PowerBook late next year :) Time for the growing pains to work out of OSx86, the hardware to be revised a couple times, and fast chips to get even faster.

[~Shard~]

Can't wait till the Rev. B or C of the dual core PowerBook comes out, getting one. This is exciting times for Apple you guys.

Those will probably be sweet machines, as long as you don't mind waiting. I could see the first ones out in a year or so, possibly, but rev Bs or Cs will no doubt take you into 2007 for sure.

[VanNess]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html Interesting given the fact that I too believe this is all about DRM!!!

Nope. Nothing to do with DRM. Apple has their own DRM and thanks to the iTunes Music store, it's well along the way towards positioning itself as the de-facto DRM standard for digital media. Apple has no need for anyone else's DRM, Intel's (the existence of which seems to be more speculation than anything else) or Microsoft's (they aren't going to be happy in the long run).

One simple fact about Apple's switch is getting completely lost: IBM screwed Apple big time. Almost everyone has forgotten that when SJ made the infamous 3ghz "promise" is was a JOINT announcement by BOTH Apple and IBM. Job's made that abundantly clear when he made the announcement. I've watched that portion of the keynote again recently. This just wasn't another edition of RDF, IBM ALSO promised 3ghz in a year.

But no one mentions that. A year later, Jobs alone took the heat for the missing 3ghz G5, IBM was nowhere in sight. Jeez, what happened to them? They were on stage just a year ago, basking in all of the glory of the announcement. IIRC, IBM provided ONE update in that time frame, and it was lackluster by any other name. And check out IBM's most recent G5's. Starting with the 2.5 Ghz model, they were so bad that Apple - not IBM - had to design a custom water-cooled enclosure just so they could get the damn thing inside a Powermac enclosure. Don't even think about a G5 Powerbook, looks like the iMac is as thin as it gonna get. And of course there was IBM's ongoing fab problems to go along with all of this.

Bottom line: Unlike it's venerable G5 PPC, IBM didn't perform. From the very start, the IBM deal was a warp-speed trip to nowhere. Apple had no choice. Poor little Freescale couldn't come close to picking up the technological slack.

So if there is one overriding reason for Intel, it's plain, simple and not the least bit conspiratorial - it's security. No more broken promises, no more technology fizzles and dead ends. And maybe, just maybe there is one tiny ray of hope that came out of Jobs' last keynote, but this one wasn't from Jobs. It was from Intel's CEO. He underscored the point that Intel looks forward to working with a leader in innovation, and I just bet they do. Up until now, Intel has been bootstrapped for decades to Microsoft and the corporate PC industry, which endures technology changes rather than encouraging them, and especially in poor Microsoft's case, is anything but innovative.

So this could be Intel's big chance to show what it really has with whatever they produce for Apple. At least in this partnership, they don't have to be concerned about issues like keeping the x86 instruction set alive for the next 30 years. In the long run, this could be Intel's chance to get out from under the rock and maybe even embarrass AMD and IBM for the technology lead.

Remember, as Apple has said time and time again, the soul of the company is innovation. They aren't and never have been a "me too" company.

[chatin]

Pentium M --> Dual-core Yonah --> 64-bit dual-core Merom

I'm liking the idea of a Merom PowerBook late next year :) Time for the growing pains to work out of OSx86, the hardware to be revised a couple times, and fast chips to get even faster.

Finally, the roadmap appears!! Not M or Yonah as previously rumored. The rumor must have gotten lost in translation between M and Merom!

The G6 Merom might just do it! :D

[Mr Maui]

i don't even know where to start taking apart your ideas... i'll leave that to the other informed mac heads
I don't believe those were Stella's ideas. The post was dripping with sarcasm concerning the types of foolish comments people have made already concerning the switch to Intel processors.

I want to hear Steve say one thing: The intel motherboard will be interchangeable with the current G5 Model.

How great would it be if we could keep the existing chassis, video card, drives, and just swap out the motherboards?
And where's the PROFIT for Apple in that? Steve doesn't like it if there's not profit.

Yea, that's what happened with those IBM chips - they went from 90nm to 65nm and got - hotter! This is something that really bothers me about this move. Apple is betting that Intel will make these great chips for them, but they don't have them yet. To borrow that movie phrase - "Show me the chips!" Intel doesn't have them, just like IBM doesn't. I would have preferred Apple just saying that they would run their OS on the fastest chip they could find, IBM, AMD, Intel, Freescale, whatever. Why are we always waiting for a faster chip that no one ever seems to be able to produce?
Intel has the Pentium M (up to 2.13 GHz, I believe I heard) and Freescale has the G4 (1.67 GHz) and IBM has ... um ... NOTHING for laptops. The Pentium M runs cooler than the G4, and so far, IBM can't cool the G5 near enough to get it into a laptop. That says that Intel does have the chips, while IBM doesn't. And by the time IBM / Freescale do, IBM may have dual cores or higher GHz available. I prefer to wait and see before passing judgement on any of this. JMO :)

[Panoctopi]

Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside. :)
completely agree, let's keep macs macs and let's not capitulate in adoration to intel so quickly.
Originally Posted by chatin
It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

Originally posted by ablueski
You are obviously in the minority with this opinion.

a couple of weeks ago it'd have been the majority opinion though. ;)

[~loserman~]

LOL, I'm really looking forward to what decent processors are going to be used in apple's laptops.

What ever they are - they will smoke today's current line up.

No doubt.....
The current PowerBook is a performance joke.
And it's battery life sucks.

Man will it be nice to get even a single core Pentium M 2.4 Ghz in a Pbook
With some nice memory bandwidth.

Can we finally say good by to the slow as hell bus speed of the G4?
I say good riddance

[Mpowerbook182]

I am starting to warm up to the idea of the Macintel. My concern is for Apple as a computer company, and the ability to charge premium prices as they do now for the PPC systems. The consumer when the switch is done to the Intel chips, will only look at the companies offering the same chip and what the systems offer hardware wise. The PPC chip allowed Apple to be "different" in pricing. A consumer will not be willing IMO to spend hundreds more for the Apple/OS X experience. Will Apple be able to live with lower margins on their end? The margins for the resellers already stink.

I would not worry to much about this, A sony vaio (laptop or Desktop) has a higher cost than a dell, and while sony doesn't sell as many computers as dell, they do sell quite a few, probably for one reason; it's a Sony, I think Apple has the same thing going for it but even more so since we have OSX.

[Mr Maui]

I just can not see Apple not introducing faster PowerMacs between now and 2007 when I suspect the PowerMacs will get the Intel chips. In the mean time there are millions who already have the professional software and will be very hesitant to upgrade to the Intel machines and deal with emulators or buy new rewritten versions.
So you believe dual 2.7s is as good as it gets till 2007? I guess Apple is just gonna close the doors until Intel is ready for them. :confused: Personally, I believe 1-2 more upgrades are in the works until Intel chip based Macs ship. Not sure about your numbers, but I bet there are millions who will continue to buy Mac products just because they are the best out there.

Let me just be the first to say....

Dual-Core G6 PowerBooks on Tuesday!!!

:D :D :D :D
Careful ... Pontiacs lawyers may be calling you for copyright infringement. :D

Pentium M --> Dual-core Yonah --> 64-bit dual-core Merom

I'm liking the idea of a Merom PowerBook late next year :) Time for the growing pains to work out of OSx86, the hardware to be revised a couple times, and fast chips to get even faster.
What's with all of the positive, enthusiastic Intel talk all of a sudden <dripping sarcasm> :D

[dontmatter]

So I'm still waiting for this debate to surface-

will apple survive the inevitable slump as people wait for intel?

votes, anybody?

A good argument?

We know they've got 6 bill in the bank, and the ipod makin' money, but will the stock survive?

[mrw]

Hope this isn't to dumb a question and it hasn't been addressed already of but, any thoughts on the performance of OSX vs Windows on same processor configuration?

[w_parietti22]

So much for the end of the MHz myth! :p

no, not really. If you compare a $2,699 2.13 Pentium M PowerBook to the $2,999 1.2 Pentium M Panosonic eLite I think people will go for the faster, cheper PowerBook.

Also the likelyhood that Apple will use Pentium M (Laptop Processors) in there PowerMacs and iMacs is unlikely. I could see it in the Mac Mini and maybe the eMac. But not the iMac and PowerMac. So if yoou compare Macintel Desktops to Wintel Desktop, they will be the same and if you compare Macintel Laptops to Wintel Laptops, it will be about the same.

I hope the Pentiums bring down the prices for Apples computers! Especialy becuase we won't need a special liquid cooling system to cool down any computer above 2.5ghz. And we won't need to have our notebooks be 2" thinkjust to fit a processor that can run above the 2ghz mark!

I love the featuire on the yohan where you can turn of one of the processors for longer battery life. that will be nice when watching movies on long trips. :)

Lots of people have copnsider Intel the dark side for many years (Even Apple, they burnt the intel bunny! haha) but yu have to look on the bright side, you no that you never were going to get a G5 in your powerbook, it was taking Apple for ever! You know that the PowerBooks were slowing. This is a chance for Apple to get you a speedy fast processor in your notebook with out it haveing to be 2" think and it killing you future children! ;) (Heating Issues!) So take this for granted and be greatful. Its going to be hard, but I think this is the right thing for Apple and the right thing for your little ones down there. :D

[AliensAreFuzzy]

Now, only if they were to release these in time for me to buy them this fall. :rolleyes:

[Mr Maui]

One simple fact about Apple's switch is getting completely lost: IBM screwed Apple big time. Almost everyone has forgotten that when SJ made the infamous 3ghz "promise" is was a JOINT announcement by BOTH Apple and IBM. Job's made that abundantly clear when he made the announcement. I've watched that portion of the keynote again recently. This just wasn't another edition of RDF, IBM ALSO promised 3ghz in a year.

But no one mentions that. A year later, Jobs alone took the heat for the missing 3ghz G5, IBM was nowhere in sight. Jeez, what happened to them? They were on stage just a year ago, basking in all of the glory of the announcement. IIRC, IBM provided ONE update in that time frame, and it was lackluster by any other name. And check out IBM's most recent G5's. Starting with the 2.5 Ghz model, they were so bad that Apple - not IBM - had to design a custom water-cooled enclosure just so they could get the damn thing inside a Powermac enclosure. Don't even think about a G5 Powerbook, looks like the iMac is as thin as it gonna get. And of course there was IBM's ongoing fab problems to go along with all of this.

Bottom line: Unlike it's venerable G5 PPC, IBM didn't perform. From the very start, the IBM deal was a warp-speed trip to nowhere. Apple had no choice. Poor little Freescale couldn't come close to picking up the technological slack.

So if there is one overriding reason for Intel, it's plain, simple and not the least bit conspiratorial - it's security. No more broken promises, no more technology fizzles and dead ends. And maybe, just maybe there is one tiny ray of hope that came out of Jobs' last keynote, but this one wasn't from Jobs. It was from Intel's CEO. He underscored the point that Intel looks forward to working with a leader in innovation, and I just bet they do. Up until now, Intel has been bootstrapped for decades to Microsoft and the corporate PC industry, which endures technology changes rather than encouraging them, and especially in poor Microsoft's case, is anything but innovative.

So this could be Intel's big chance to show what it really has with whatever they produce for Apple. At least in this partnership, they don't have to be concerned about issues like keeping the x86 instruction set alive for the next 30 years. In the long run, this could be Intel's chance to get out from under the rock and maybe even embarrass AMD and IBM for the technology lead.

Remember, as Apple has said time and time again, the soul of the company is innovation. They aren't and never have been a "me too" company.
Well said ... says I !! <for what that's worth> ;)

Originally Posted by Chip NoVaMac
I am starting to warm up to the idea of the Macintel. My concern is for Apple as a computer company, and the ability to charge premium prices as they do now for the PPC systems. The consumer when the switch is done to the Intel chips, will only look at the companies offering the same chip and what the systems offer hardware wise. The PPC chip allowed Apple to be "different" in pricing. A consumer will not be willing IMO to spend hundreds more for the Apple/OS X experience. Will Apple be able to live with lower margins on their end? The margins for the resellers already stink.
Mac users already do. Loyal Mac people know that the chip is only a small part of the equation. The OS is the key. No Dell with Windows can even compete in the Apple / OSX arena. IMO

[~Shard~]

So I'm still waiting for this debate to surface-

will apple survive the inevitable slump as people wait for intel?

votes, anybody?

A good argument?

We know they've got 6 bill in the bank, and the ipod makin' money, but will the stock survive?

I don't think this is going to be that major of an issue, as I don't see a ton of people waiting for Intel. There are two basic groups of Mac users out there as I see it:

1) Geeks like us who know every single detail and will scrutinize these things very closely. We're the ones who watched the keynote, understand the concept of universal binaries, and as a result, should not feel like we need to wait for Intel-based machines. (Of course everyone has their personal preference, but I'm speaking from a logical/knowledge perspective - there's no issue with buying an existing PPC)

2) Joe Mac-User who uses Macs because they're nice and they work and doesn't have a clue what type of processor Macs currently have, let alone what processor they're moving to. These users will buy Macs when they need to, regardless of what is underneath the hood. They could care less.

[elo]

Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside. :)

This is an outstanding suggestion.

[nsjoker]

So I'm still waiting for this debate to surface-

will apple survive the inevitable slump as people wait for intel?

votes, anybody?

A good argument?

We know they've got 6 bill in the bank, and the ipod makin' money, but will the stock survive?

of course it will. it'll be a tough year, but once apple rolls out 6th gen ipods they'll be back in business... and once the intel macs start shipping, any losses in 2005 will be worth it.

[Mr Maui]

So I'm still waiting for this debate to surface-

will apple survive the inevitable slump as people wait for intel?

votes, anybody?

A good argument?

We know they've got 6 bill in the bank, and the ipod makin' money, but will the stock survive?
It always has ... just depends on whether investors will freak out as bad as some of the people in these threads. :rolleyes: Apple and Steve Jobs know how to make money and how to do it with style, class, and a loyal following too. JMO

no, not really. If you compare a $2,699 2.13 Pentium M PowerBook to the $2,999 1.2 Pentium M Panosonic eLite I think people will go for the faster, cheper PowerBook.
Not to mention "classier"! ;)

[Mr Maui]

This is an outstanding suggestion.
Thank you very much ... (I kinda thought so, if I may say so myself). ;)

of course it will. it'll be a tough year, but once apple rolls out 6th gen ipods they'll be back in business... and once the intel macs start shipping, any losses in 2005 will be worth it.
I believe Steve Jobs did a good job of alleviating some of the fears that people had about the possible switch to Intel when he announced it was a reality for the following reasons:

1. The fact that OSX has been working on Intel since its inception (5 years).
2. The fact that Rosetta allows existing PPC apps to work on Intel with a minor speed loss.
3. When he acknowledged that the WWDC demos were being done on an Intel box.
4. When he explained Universal Binaries (for those who didn't understand them)
5. When he talked about (with Mathematica CEO) the relative ease of porting of many to most existing apps, other than really OLD ones.
6. When he talked about Intel's timeline vs. IBM.
and
7. When he reiterated that this move was being made because Apple wants to continue to deliver the best computers out there, and IBM / Freescale were not making that possible.

[jettredmont]

I think the Ibooks will get a minor speed bump soon, then at mwsf 06 we will get powerbooks with the M chip, I think it will happen similar to this becuse I doubt Apple would give the new chip to the Ibook first, but I could be wrong, just my 2 cents.

Dave

The iBook is less likely to be using high-end Altivec-loving pro apps that will run like crap under Rosetta. An iBook is significantly more likely to be using just Apple software (OS X and iLife and MAYBE MS Office).

In this way, iBooks first makes sense. Especially if the processor put in there is not a barn-burner (there are slow Intel chips too ...)

I do agree, however, that all things considered it looks more likely that the PB will get Intel chips before iBooks (but possibly after Mac Minis).

[jettredmont]

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_M)

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

That's rather inaccurate. While the PM is closer to a PIII than a P4 in overall design and design goals, it is hardly right to categorize it as a souped-up P3. It can just as easily be called an evolved P4, minus the Netburst abominations. It's only more like a P3 because so much of the difference between the P3 and P4 was Netburst. Looking at the other P4 advances (better pipelining and branching, etc), they all made it to the "M" as well.

The PM, also, is hardly "unreliable". At least, I've not heard of any more problems with PM-based machines than with others. Do you have any data to back up this assertion?

[Silver Apple]

I've see people post here that Yonah will max out at 2.1 Ghz ...

Well, most of the Intel insider's that I've been reading suggests a little faster than that... 2.1 or 2.0 will most likely be the bottom end. 2.5 or perhaps 2.7 could be the top end.

Yonah will also come in a single core flavour.

As far as a 64 bit part ... Intel says that they will release that when the market demands it.... or I'm betting if Apple demands it for the Powerbook line (dual core) with single core going to ibook possibly. I believe that the single core will be designated Celeron M

http://www2.technobabble.com.au/article247.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21091

Cheers! :D

[pont]

Hope this isn't to dumb a question and it hasn't been addressed already of but, any thoughts on the performance of OSX vs Windows on same processor configuration?

From my experiance with proformance of Mac vs Linux on a powerpc and Linux vs Windows on intel, I would say that OSX will proform resonably well, XP and OSX both seem to love memory, while i think macos likes it abit more, I think the proformance of OSX will be quite good compared to windows, as long as you have the ram :).

But then again, OSX runs like complete crap on my iBook 800mhz and linux runs sweet, but I think thats more of a ram issue then anything. 256 meg of ram is no good for OSX :P.

We will see I guess. Part of me says windows will run smoother (but then again by that stage longhorn might be released witch will prolly run like complete crap on anything) but poart of me says that they will both run farly similar.

Lets hope its the later

[DavidCar]

Somewhere in reading up to this point I thought I read the Pentium-M design (Wow, that's the first time I've ever had to spell Pentium), and presumably the designs derived from it, like Yonah and Conroe, don't have hyperthreading. I would think hyperthreading would be an advantage for OSX. Am I wrong here?

[sord]

Let me be the first to say PowerBook G5s next Tuesday!
... :confused: ...
nvm PowerBook Yonahs next Tuesday!!!

[sord]

That's rather inaccurate. While the PM is closer to a PIII than a P4 in overall design and design goals, it is hardly right to categorize it as a souped-up P3. It can just as easily be called an evolved P4, minus the Netburst abominations. It's only more like a P3 because so much of the difference between the P3 and P4 was Netburst. Looking at the other P4 advances (better pipelining and branching, etc), they all made it to the "M" as well.

The PM, also, is hardly "unreliable". At least, I've not heard of any more problems with PM-based machines than with others. Do you have any data to back up this assertion?
Woah careful there - PM now can mean PowerMac or Pentium M :mad:
Thats one more double abreviation we have to worry about (like PB for PowerBook and Project Builder)

[iMeowbot]

Somewhere in reading up to this point I thought I read the Pentium-M design (Wow, that's the first time I've ever had to spell Pentium), and presumably the designs derived from it, like Yonah and Conroe, don't have hyperthreading. I would think hyperthreading would be an advantage for OSX. Am I wrong here?
Hyperthreading as implemented now has security issues (http://kerneltrap.org/node/5103). It's great that the developer boxes have it, since it still makes it possible to test multiprocessor stuff without actually having more than one CPU. In real life it's often not a huge performance win anyway, and genuine dual core processors will be much more fun.

[j_maddison]

Pentium M will never be 64-bit or dual capable. The EMT64 spec requires a RISC CPU, the M is a hybrid - at best. That's probably why the keynote and the transition kits ignore 64-bit.

Unlike the G5, the cache memory on a Pentium does not run at the same speed as the CPU. Xeon is more like the G5, because of a vastly superior cache. IMHO, putting a Pentium anything in a Mac is going backwards.

I agree with you. Personally I don't think we'll ever see a Powermac with a P4 chip, my opinion is that we'll see Powermacs move to a Xeon based chip in two years time.

If we do see a P4, or what ever the equivalent is by then, it will be in the imacs, emacs and mini lineup.

Just a quick question, will the Pentium M mean that notebooks can get thinner? I'm specifically thinking about the 12" PB here. Could we see a Powerbook that is ridiculously thin??

Jason

[Silver Apple]

I read somewhere (anandtech) that Intel couldl possibly have a yonah "extreme edition" part which is Inte'ls moniker for hyperthreading. The followup, Merom and Conroe (desktop) will definitely have it. They have "fixed" the security issues with earlier version of this technology apparently.

As far as the performance gains by hyperthreading ... some applications (threaded ones) can have significant performance boosts... as much as 50% gains so a dual core hyperthreading CPU like the merom, conroe .. could be a rocket for those applications. Incidently ... Mac OSX makes great use of threaded applications so .... watch out!!!

Cheers :) :)

[DavidCar]

This must be the article you refer to:

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2366

Note: I didn't see a Yonah extreme mentioned there, but I did see something about SIMD FP, but I don't understand if that would compare with Altivec.

Note2: Nothing like Altivec. Just the capability to decode and execute several SSE instructions in parallel.

[Silver Apple]

Just a quick question, will the Pentium M mean that notebooks can get thinner? I'm specifically thinking about the 12" PB here. Could we see a Powerbook that is ridiculously thin??
Jason

There are quite a few ultra thin Pentium M and Ultra low voltage Pentium Notebooks on the market ... I think the thinnest is the Sony X505:
http://www.kemplar.com/sonyu3_ts.htm (0.5 to 0.7 inch thick -- 1.8 lbs)
also the Toshiba R200 and several others are about the same ...
IMAGINE what the boys in the Apple lab could come up with ? :D


Just for your info, along with the standard Pentium M Yonahs coming out there will be ultra low voltage versions of Yonah as well ... I think 1.6 & 1.8 Ghz ?? That consume total 15 watts of power only!!

Cheers! :)

[sw1tcher]

It is my guess that there will be a design change to go with the new processor insertions. May still be aluminum, but I'd bet some design change will occur to distinguish the new line.
All Apple has to do to distinguish the new PB line from the old PB line is to slap an Intel Inside or Centrino sticker (http://support.intel.com/support/processors/tools/ctu/sb/img/centrinorgb300.png) on it.

[JDOG_]

Sounds good to me. High clockspeed, low power consumption & heat...sounds like a dream come true :)

Excited about the next generation, I don't care who makes the chips, apple's bringing the dip & it's not going to the bean variety if you know what I'm saying.

[ansalmo]

Yes but only if that Pentium M's FSB is waaaaay faster than the Pentium 4's. Which it currently isn't so it is NOT as fast as a P4 with a 800Mhz FSB.

The day I stop caring about how the "inners" of a CPU work is the day I become a quadriplegic. The "inners" are everything for a CPU! :rolleyes:

Sethypoo, what are you basing your opinions on? You seem obsessed with FSB speeds for some reason.

Let me tell you of my experience. Alongside my Mac equipment, I ran a 2.4GHz P4 (800MHz FSB), which was overclocked to 3.0GHz (1GHz FSB). I replaced this with a Pentium-M Dothan desktop (not a laptop) running at 2.0GHz, with less than half the FSB speed of the P4 system, and it wiped the floor with the P4. What was most gratifying was that it did this with a peak load CPU temperature of 38C, compared to the P4's 65C....

About the only thing the P4 was better at was video encoding. Perhaps that's why you want the P4? My focus was more C/C++ development (much faster compile times on the P-M), with a bit of gaming on the side (again honours go to the P-M).

[ZLurker]

I don't think this is going to be that major of an issue, as I don't see a ton of people waiting for Intel. There are two basic groups of Mac users out there as I see it:

1) Geeks like us who know every single detail and will scrutinize these things very closely. We're the ones who watched the keynote, understand the concept of universal binaries, and as a result, should not feel like we need to wait for Intel-based machines. (Of course everyone has their personal preference, but I'm speaking from a logical/knowledge perspective - there's no issue with buying an existing PPC)

2) Joe Mac-User who uses Macs because they're nice and they work and doesn't have a clue what type of processor Macs currently have, let alone what processor they're moving to. These users will buy Macs when they need to, regardless of what is underneath the hood. They could care less.
Well said!
I will not wait. My next mac will be delivered to my doorstep later this fall, guessing after the Paris event.

[ZLurker]

I am thrilled about this move to Intel!
I think it was SJ that ones set out on a quest to remove all fans from the computer. Well for the last couple of years that would have been impossible. But now i think we will see iMac power without fans, not just mac mini. I guess its not yet possible to ask this for PM yet, not even after the switch.
I mean, why should a computer make any sound? Except for music through the speakers ;)

[sord]

I don't think this is going to be that major of an issue, as I don't see a ton of people waiting for Intel. There are two basic groups of Mac users out there as I see it:

1) Geeks like us who know every single detail and will scrutinize these things very closely. We're the ones who watched the keynote, understand the concept of universal binaries, and as a result, should not feel like we need to wait for Intel-based machines. (Of course everyone has their personal preference, but I'm speaking from a logical/knowledge perspective - there's no issue with buying an existing PPC)

2) Joe Mac-User who uses Macs because they're nice and they work and doesn't have a clue what type of processor Macs currently have, let alone what processor they're moving to. These users will buy Macs when they need to, regardless of what is underneath the hood. They could care less.
3) Geeks who want the latest and greatest and now think that their iMac G5s now only have a $400 resale value because Intel based Macs will be coming out.

I'm between 1 and 3 but closer to 1 (I want the latest and greatest even though I understand having the latest and greatest PPC based will be fine for years to come)

[MacMyDay]

Interesting how many people have rated this positive in comparison to the original release announcement of Intel. Seems that once figures are mentioned, the benefits become more clear.

I just hope there's at least some form of updates for the computers in the next year, otherwise the infamous Osborne Effect might really be a kick in the teeth.

[sord]

Interesting how many people have rated this positive in comparison to the original release announcement of Intel. Seems that once figures are mentioned, the benefits become more clear.

I just hope there's at least some form of updates for the computers in the next year, otherwise the infamous Osborne Effect might really be a kick in the teeth.
I think people have finally just calmed down and realized that Apple will continue to make great products, even if it runs on similar hardware as Windows.

[Prom1]

I think people have finally just calmed down and realized that Apple will continue to make great products, even if it runs on similar hardware as Windows.

Including me. But for those that still cannot believe a Mac or any Apple machine running an Intel I provide you this link courtesy of EveryMac.com

http://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/stats/mac_quadra_610.html

not one but two machines had an old Intel chip and were also DUAL BOOT. It didnt kill Apple then, and it most surely won't know. Does anyone have a photo of that old server that Apple made in the '09s that looked like a coffee machine with lots of hard-drives that could be pulled out? If so could you PM me that photo please?Thanks.

Intel Pentium 4 HT chips - HyperThreading - came out before the Extreme Edition models. Some 2.8Ghz had that branding. As mentioned in another thread Intel already has x86-64bit cpu's shipping. Yonah should be 64-bit as well as 32-bit; if I read correctly. A PowerBook with a Yonah dualcore 64-bit chip should be sweet. I just would like it with a really exotic look like when the TiBooks 1st came out compared to every other competitor.

Any G6 moniker related to a Pontiac car shouldn't prevent Apple from using it. For one thing Apple makes computers, and secondly they can prove that more recognition of the G* lineup is on their side as apposed to Pontiac (G of the G6 car is short for GrandAm 6th generation).

[devman]

So you believe dual 2.7s is as good as it gets till 2007? I guess Apple is just gonna close the doors until Intel is ready for them. :confused: Personally, I believe 1-2 more upgrades are in the works until Intel chip based Macs ship. Not sure about your numbers, but I bet there are millions who will continue to buy Mac products just because they are the best out there.


At least one more PowerMac PPC upgrade is definite. Quite likely more.

[Prom1]

Oh yeah I forgot to thank Arn and this powerful site & forums.

Apple may have actually done the easy part by always having OS X x86 version ace up its sleeve, but thanks to very knowledgable members and this site, so many of Apple's current sales until next year or even further are saved.

Early switchers and potentials like myself almost shat ourselves hearing the transition news and panicked. But with knowledge help & guidance on this site, were accepting, calm, heck even happy.

[edwin.bossier]

a

[nagromme]

Two questions about Yonah:

1. Will it have Hyper-Threading?

2. What IS Hyper-Threading? :D

My understanding is that hyper-threading makes the OS see each core as TWO processors, so dual cores in one Yonah would be seen as four processors. I assume "About This Mac" is smart enough not to report 4 though, and as I understand it each core isn't truly doubled: it can run two threads at once sometimes, not always.

Now, since that's all wrong... anyone want to clarify? :)

And if not Yonah, will Merom have it? (The 64-bit laptop ship coming at the end of 2006 after Yonah.)

(FWIW, it's also my understanding that Pentium M throws out a lot of bloat from the P4--and so being similar in SOME ways to the P3 is no bad thing.)

[iMeowbot]

My understanding is that hyper-threading makes the OS see each core as TWO processors, so dual cores in one Yonah would be seen as four processors. I assume "About This Mac" is smart enough not to report 4 though, and as I understand it each core isn't truly doubled: it can run two threads at once sometimes, not always.
That's correct, and the leaked screen shots show that OS X can tell the difference. And yes, Yonah is reportedly (http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050602_143758.html) getting HT.

(EDIT: actually, the linked article doesn't mention HT, I'll swear it used to. Reports out there conflict.)

(Another edit: here's (http://www.etmag.com/etmag-news/daily-news/2005/0603/0603.htm) one from an intel suit saying that it will have HT.)

http://endian.net is nice to have around to help keep track of the roadmap madness.

[gadget1974]

New poster here, de-lurking for the first time in 3 years... excuse the rambling, but there is a lot of pent up stuff.... :)

I think that the Ars article is the best I have read since Steve took to the stage, in particular it explained why I feel positive for the switch in general terms, but negative for the future of the Mac platform and my "passion" for it:

Quote:

The Mac's "RISC CPU" meant something to a small but very important fraction of the Mac user base. These people were on fire about PowerPC vs. x86, RISC vs. CISC, and the platform wars in general. They cared about things like elegance and orthogonality, and when they used Apple hardware they felt "geeky." And the presence of PPC, regardless of its actual contribution to the cold hard benchmark numbers, lent to these vocal and highly enthusiastic Apple users the sense that they were members of an exclusive club of people "in the know," whose technical tastes were more refined and who were just plan smarter than the average "PC weenie."

This absolutely captures how I feel. I just don't like the idea of having an Intel processor in the heart of my Mac, not because it won't be better - it probably will. Just because I buy Macs because they are different, and I buy Macs because in some sad and pathetic way they make me feel "superior". (And they rock, of course.)

Also, I am dreading the day that Apple launch a new Intel based Mac and the usual "price comparisons with a Dell" are reported..... pardon the phrase but it will be a comparison of apples with apples and that makes me uncomfortable. We have always been able to "self justify" our purchase behind the processor architecture and the os. Now we only have the os. And if some hacker works out how to run mac os x on a Dell, how many of the cash strapped amongst us are going to be tempted?

[hcorf]

as a public company doesnt apple have to ask its shareholders before doing something like this?

and if they think it will make their stock collapse for next year or so, cant they tell apple to reverse this decision?

i just dont know what percentage of apple is publiclly owned these days, can anyone answer that?

[rdowns]

Let me just be the first to say....

Dual-Core G6 PowerBooks on Tuesday!!!

:D :D :D :D

Don't be THAT guy.

[nagromme]

That's correct, and the leaked screen shots show that OS X can tell the difference.

Thanks for the links! What leaked screen shots are those? They show a Mac being aware of dual cores vs. HT?

EDIT: Oh... I posted that prefs shot myself yesterday! Didn't notice the HT checkbox. Back to my hole now :)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131320

Anyway, unrelated: re 64-bit not making it to Yonah: I'm led to believe that 64-bit would increase power usage and heat--and it's seldom of use currently. So while it IS coming to laptops (Merom?) I won't lose sleep if I don't have it.

[rdowns]

of course it will. it'll be a tough year, but once apple rolls out 6th gen ipods they'll be back in business... and once the intel macs start shipping, any losses in 2005 will be worth it.

6G iPods? What happened to the 5G?

[rdowns]

Let me be the first to say PowerBook G5s next Tuesday!
... :confused: ...
nvm PowerBook Yonahs next Tuesday!!!

Unfortunately, you're not the first. One can only hope you're the last.

[MacBram]

I am starting to warm up to the idea of the Macintel. My concern is for Apple as a computer company, and the ability to charge premium prices as they do now for the PPC systems. The consumer when the switch is done to the Intel chips, will only look at the companies offering the same chip and what the systems offer hardware wise. The PPC chip allowed Apple to be "different" in pricing. A consumer will not be willing IMO to spend hundreds more for the Apple/OS X experience. Will Apple be able to live with lower margins on their end? The margins for the resellers already stink.

It seems that many people switch or get into Macs PRECISELY BECAUSE OF the user experience, and DESPITE the processor. As mostly unfounded as we all know it to be, the megahertz myth is probably what has concerned most people the most; and running on an "alien" processor or architecture probably concerned most IT support staff a lot as well, because it also leads to questions about compatibility - maybe more so than the fact that the operating system is different...

We know that the Mac is more "compatible" than most people realise. And thanks to the unix underpinnings of OS X and better implementation of universal standards, networking and hardware support, more open source etc., a case can be made that the Mac is "more compatible". That the processor is now going to be "no different", no longer alien, gives no one an excuse not to investigate Macs and try one out.

So why should anyone switch? Because they WILL STILL BE MACS WITH A SUPERIOR USER EXPERIENCE! The point has continually been made. Macs will not change into crummy unproductive boxes that cost twice as much for the same thing you can get from DELL. Besides the user experience, I am sure Apple can get better benchmark results from the same chips because of the cleanness of the operating system, ingenuity in technologies, and quality of parts.

Of course people still need to discover the superior user experience, and they need to be educated, they need to be shown. But the winning argument is not, and has never been, "hey come and try this other kind of computer that has a different processor." [edit] "...it costs more but the extra expense is justified because the processor is different." No. Other things (in addition to user experience) justify the price difference: life, "things just work", security, appeal, etc. etc. [edit]

Rip

[nagromme]

6G iPods? What happened to the 5G?
I guess some people call the iPod Photo the 5G, but I disagree. It's just the top-end 4G. I'd accept the Shuffle being called the 5G first :) But that's just a different model, like the Mini.

So there is no 5G yet in my book.

I'm glad we'll have a reason to keep using "G"s :)

[sacear]

Including me. But for those that still cannot believe a Mac or any Apple machine running an Intel I provide you this link courtesy of EveryMac.com

http://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_quadra/stats/mac_quadra_610.html

not one but two machines had an old Intel chip and were also DUAL BOOT. It didnt kill Apple then, and it most surely won't know. Does anyone have a photo of that old server that Apple made in the '09s that looked like a coffee machine with lots of hard-drives that could be pulled out? If so could you PM me that photo please?Thanks.

Any G6 moniker related to a Pontiac car shouldn't prevent Apple from using it. For one thing Apple makes computers, and secondly they can prove that more recognition of the G* lineup is on their side as apposed to Pontiac (G of the G6 car is short for GrandAm 6th generation).Is this what you are looking for? The Network Server 700/200. (http://everymac.com/systems/apple/network_server/stats/networkserver_700_200.html) ...a rugged, easy-to-expand tower case designed so that any major component can be replaced in less than a minute. The enclosure includes a lockable translucent front bay door, seven front-mounted, hotswappable drive bays, hotswappable external fans, optional redundant hotswappable powersupplies, and a rear 'drawer' for easy access to internal components. The Network Server models are technically not 'Macs', as they do not operate the MacOS, and instead use AIX (an IBM version of UNIX).
As for the G6 moniker, Apple has nothing to worry about. Apple has an established pattern with the G3, G4, and G5 series names. Also, Pontiac has made G4 and G5 model name cars and hasn't said anything.

[iMeowbot]

Thanks for the links! What leaked screen shots are those? They show a Mac being aware of dual cores vs. HT?

Hey, you even posted a copy here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=131320) :D

Also, re 64-bit not making it to Yonah: I'm led to believe that 64-bit would increase power usage and heat--and it's seldom of use currently. So while it IS coming to laptops (Merom?) I won't lose sleep if I don't have it.
The 64-bit support in Tiger is kind of lame anyway, it's not really integrated with Cocoa and Carbon. Mainstream applications aren't likely to make use of it.

[Cold_Steel]

Pentium-M... c'mon Apple give us a break. While the P-M chips may be good for ibooks, powerbooks and the minis they aint gonna cut it for the big boy powermacs.
I meany you buy a powermac because your a power user and a lame Pentium-M will not cut it im afraid. I mean all you have to do is pick up any PC mag and see that for apps which need the grunt and horsepower (i.e 3d, CAD/CAm etc) and therefore what a powermac is needed for only the regular Pentium 4s will do, the 6xx or 8xx. The P-Ms cant keep up with the regular P-4s for pure power.

Hopefully apple is going to shoot itself in the foot AGAIN by selling us under powered pocessors.

Matt

[javiercr]

If they don't support 64 bit then will they actually go in a Powerbook? It would seem to me that Apple would want 64 bit support for the Powerbook line, but Intel says they aren't going to support it until it's needed. I think it's needed now, don't you?

Powerbook sales are going to drop like a stone until the Intel chips are ready. :(

why is it needed 'now'? they are not going to mac a laptop with 8Gbs of RAM 'now'

64bit powerbook don't exist now so it is not a step backwards for apple to use 32bit intel stuff

[sacear]

as a public company doesnt apple have to ask its shareholders before doing something like this?

and if they think it will make their stock collapse for next year or so, cant they tell apple to reverse this decision?

i just dont know what percentage of apple is publiclly owned these days, can anyone answer that?Well, there was a stock-holders meeting earlier this year and since the Apple Board of Directors members as a group probably own over 50% of the company, they then probably approved the deal with Intel. However, the deal can easily be approved by agreement via conference call with a majority of the Board members.

[mouchoir]

Now we have Intel Powerbook rumors to look forward too. :rolleyes:

So, when should we expect G5 Powerbooks? ;)

[tdewey]

Pentium-M... c'mon Apple give us a break. While the P-M chips may be good for ibooks, powerbooks and the minis they aint gonna cut it for the big boy powermacs.
I meany you buy a powermac because your a power user and a lame Pentium-M will not cut it im afraid. I mean all you have to do is pick up any PC mag and see that for apps which need the grunt and horsepower (i.e 3d, CAD/CAm etc) and therefore what a powermac is needed for only the regular Pentium 4s will do, the 6xx or 8xx. The P-Ms cant keep up with the regular P-4s for pure power.

Hopefully apple is going to shoot itself in the foot AGAIN by selling us under powered pocessors.

Matt

Please check the links already posted on this thread or google Pentium-M. Your understanding of the relative power of P-M v P4 is incorrect.

[AP_piano295]

POWERBOOK M TUESDAY WOOT WOOT

[AP_piano295]

So, when should we expect G5 Powerbooks? ;)

never

[Roller]

New poster here, de-lurking for the first time in 3 years... excuse the rambling, but there is a lot of pent up stuff.... :)

I think that the Ars article is the best I have read since Steve took to the stage, in particular it explained why I feel positive for the switch in general terms, but negative for the future of the Mac platform and my "passion" for it:

In some respects, the switch to Intel will be like going back to the Mac's pre-PPC days. I bought my first 128k Mac 21 years ago not because of its 68000 processor but because the user experience was so much better than on any of the competition, including my Apple ][ Plus. Although most people paid some attention to CPU changes over the years (000, 020, 030, 040), it was only after the PPC that the chip wars really got heated up, and Apple and others began to tout the RISC vs. CISC advantage.

Going forward, it's mostly going to be user experience again. Sure, people will still buy Macs because of their elegant physical design, reliability (comparative), and so on, but the OS is going to count even more than it does now.

And, in that respect, I hope that Apple's software engineers are going back to the drawing board with Leopard. As much as I appreciate OS X, the Mac OS feels more disjointed to be with each update. If Apple's going to thrive, Leopard is going to have to reverse this trend; this is especially important since 10.5, Longhorn, and Intel-based PowerMacs will all appear at roughly the same time.

[Quartz Extreme]

As for the G6 moniker, Apple has nothing to worry about. Apple has an established pattern with the G3, G4, and G5 series names. Also, Pontiac has made G4 and G5 model name cars and hasn't said anything.

Lets not forget the Canon PowerShot G3, the G3-class of stars in astronomy, the G3 Free Trade Agreement, the G4 TV channel, the G4 nations and G5 Jet (Gulfstream VI), the G5 engine, the G5 howitzer and the G5, now G7 countries. ;)
But it probably isn't likely for Apple to use the next POWER chip in the Macs. The last PPC product will likely be the 970MP. (Unless they call this the G6..)

[danielwsmithee]

The Mac's "RISC CPU" meant something to a small but very important fraction of the Mac user base. These people were on fire about PowerPC vs. x86, RISC vs. CISC, and the platform wars in general....

A lot of people have mentioned the RISC vs. CISC debates that went on not tool long ago. I think a lot has changed in the market since that time. At that time RISC processors almost always saw better performance, because compilers were never very smart at optimizing code to take advantage of the more complex instruction sets. They did a great job of compiling down to simple instructions that ran very quickly.

Since that time compiler have progressed a lot, GCC 4.0 can make any code sing on a CISC chip!!

[danielwsmithee]

Pentium-M... c'mon Apple give us a break. While the P-M chips may be good for ibooks, powerbooks and the minis they aint gonna cut it for the big boy powermacs.
I meany you buy a powermac because your a power user and a lame Pentium-M will not cut it im afraid. I mean all you have to do is pick up any PC mag and see that for apps which need the grunt and horsepower (i.e 3d, CAD/CAm etc) and therefore what a powermac is needed for only the regular Pentium 4s will do, the 6xx or 8xx. The P-Ms cant keep up with the regular P-4s for pure power.

Hopefully apple is going to shoot itself in the foot AGAIN by selling us under powered pocessors.

Matt
Man you need to read stuff before you spout off your dribble. :mad: No one is suggesting that the Pentium-M will be used in the power mac. Only the Pentium-M's technologies will be applied to future much more powerful chips for use in the PM's and PB's for that matter.

[dieselg4]

Personally, I hope they use the Intel Pentium D processors in Macintosh desktops; the Pentium M's will work well for PowerBooks and iBooks, but the frontside bus is only 400Mhz, a far cry from the 1.35Ghz FSB of the dual 2.7Ghz G5, or even the 667Mhz FSB of the 2.0 Ghz G5 in the iMac G5.

If Apple is going to make this move to Intel work, they need to either equal their current processor speeds or increase them.

I'd rather see a desktop version of the Pentium M's successor, witha much smaller and quieter heat sink and fan (as observed from the Tom's Hardware article, P-M vs P-4 etc.)

[dieselg4]

Pentium-M... c'mon Apple give us a break. While the P-M chips may be good for ibooks, powerbooks and the minis they aint gonna cut it for the big boy powermacs.
I meany you buy a powermac because your a power user and a lame Pentium-M will not cut it im afraid. I mean all you have to do is pick up any PC mag and see that for apps which need the grunt and horsepower (i.e 3d, CAD/CAm etc) and therefore what a powermac is needed for only the regular Pentium 4s will do, the 6xx or 8xx. The P-Ms cant keep up with the regular P-4s for pure power.

Hopefully apple is going to shoot itself in the foot AGAIN by selling us under powered pocessors.

Matt

It would appear (according to previously posted "sources" that Apple won't be using a Pentium M in the PowerMacs, but a future Pentium M derivative.

According to several articles, including the THG post, the Penitum M can more than keep up with the P4, even on a 2 year old motherboard and a substantial mhz disadvantage.

[AidenShaw]

If they don't support 64 bit then will they actually go in a Powerbook? It would seem to me that Apple would want 64 bit support for the Powerbook line, but Intel says they aren't going to support it until it's needed. I think it's needed now, don't you?

Powerbook sales are going to drop like a stone until the Intel chips are ready. :(

Most of the 64-bit benefit won't be there unless you have more than 4 GiB of RAM. Unlikely in a portable for a few more years.

[broken_keyboard]

Most of the 64-bit benefit won't be there unless you have more than 4 GiB of RAM. Unlikely in a portable for a few more years.

What you talkin' 'bout Willis? :-)

The memory model presented to the programmer (32 or 64 bit) is independent of the amount of physical memory. Even when coding is assembly you still don't use physical addresses, but rather you just address the model.

[nhkader]

Apple will make a distinction between the Mac mini, iBook and Powerbook. The way I see it and it fits with the release of the chips is:

Mac Mini - Pentium M (single core)
iBook - Pentium M (single core)
Powerbook - Pentium M (Yonah - dual core)

There will thus be a decent differentiation between the iBooks and the PBs unlike the current G4 range. The iBooks will be very competitively priced. I cannot see any need for the Powerbooks to be 64bit as Tiger is perfectly at home on the G4.

Roll on new Powerbook.

[~Shard~]

3) Geeks who want the latest and greatest and now think that their iMac G5s now only have a $400 resale value because Intel based Macs will be coming out.

I'm between 1 and 3 but closer to 1 (I want the latest and greatest even though I understand having the latest and greatest PPC based will be fine for years to come)


Fair enough, I'm willing to include that one as well. :)

[SiliconAddict]

You do realize that the first shipments of mactels will be june next year.

And you do realize that Steve said the first Macintels will ship BY june of ’06. Not ON June of ’06.

[SPUY767]

THe Pentium M is an Excellent choice. It is an extremely efficient processor, and it smites even AMD's offerings, and AM has some pretty nifty chips, as far as power usage is concerned. Don't be surprised if the lower end desktop macs get M's as well. Who knows what apple's product line will look like in 2 years, but one thing is certain, the future is bright for apple. The only thing that concerns me is the numbskulls who yammer on about how terrible of an idea getting a PPC mac would be now. IBM may hit 3Ghz in a powermac by delivery of the first intel macs. Although a .3Ghz increase would be a stretch for IBM in a years time. (Sorry, that was a shameless jab) At any rate, Apple's future is practically shimmering.

[Gasu E.]

Here we go, 50 pages of misguided ***** of how -
- intel sucks
- intel means viruses
- people don't want macs to get over 5% market share.
- macs will be Dell quality machines
- Apple should have gone with IBM's (!!!???)
- apple making osx available on all PCs
- the final demise of Macs



You left out:

- if it had to be x86, it should have been AMD

[iMeowbot]

And you do realize that Steve said the first Macintels will ship BY june of ’06. Not ON June of ’06.
Sure, but he also said the first 3 GHz G5s would ship by June '04.... :D

[Quartz Extreme]

2006
iBook, Mac mini, eMac - Pentium M
PowerBook - Yonah/Jonah, Dual Core Pentium M
2007
iMac - Conroe, a 64-bit Yonah
PowerMac - Shavano, 64-bit, Dual-core

[AidenShaw]

That's my hope. Because wouldn't it be funny if intel went the way IBM did for apple, and IBM took it's console expertise and turned it into an awesome PC chip, but microsoft couldn't support anything but X86?
You forget that Microsoft is running an NT-based system on the PowerPC Xbox 360....

You forget that Microsoft's NT-based Windows CE is supported on ARM, MIPS and x86 processors....

You forget that NT has been sold and supported for MIPS, PowerPC and Alpha processors....

You forget that XP and Windows 2003 are currently sold and supported on x86, x64 and Itanium processors....

Microsoft has always had NT running on multiple platforms.

Don't you suspect that somewhere in Redmond there are Windows XP systems running on PowerMac G5 systems? The expense of keeping these alternate architectures running would be a drop in the bucket for Microsoft....

[stockscalper]

A lot of revisionist history and reviewing going on with the Pentium class of chips. It's nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig. Pentium chips still equal crap no matter what kind of spin is put on them. Why do you think they aren't used in workstation mini frame computers? Why do you think Microsoft and Sony dumped Intel for their upcoming game stations?

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. :D

[Yebot]

A consumer will not be willing IMO to spend hundreds more for the Apple/OS X experience.

I disagree.

The average user only has one alternative to Mac - and that is Windows. I still think that Linux, while enjoying a sizable install-base, its still a non-alternative to the average soccer-mom.

By now, there are legions of PC users who aren't interested in daily, weekly, monthly and yearly fights against Windows virii, spyware and adware. [NOTE: Virii, spyware and adware attack the Windows OS, not Intel chips.] They wan't a machine that 'just works' and since you don't buy Macs from ill-informed BestBuy or CircuitCity salespeople anymore, the truth about OSX's superiority can be clear to the average consumer's visit to an Apple Store.

Icing on the cake: Apple has said that there <is/will be> no reason why people couldn't install Windoze on one of the new ApTel Macs.

So, for an extra C-note or two, the soccer-moms can get a computer that is better-looking, harder-working, easier-to-use AND will jump into 'Windows-Mode' to run a familar application if need be.

[ebunton]

I just realised that Apple can basically no longer compare their hardware performance to PC's, since they will be using the same hardware! :eek:

[Jmitch]

I'm actually down with this whole thing. I see no reason for Apple to not utilize Intel's chips and I see nothing wrong with Intel's chips. But what does this mean for Microsoft? I mean Windows will be able to run natively right on the Macintel. What does this all mean? Will Apple release a Mac OS X that is fully compatible with all Intel chips?

[Veldek]

I just realised that Apple can basically no longer compare their hardware performance to PC's, since they will be using the same hardware! :eek:And they won't have a need to do so anymore!

[Mr Maui]

All Apple has to do to distinguish the new PB line from the old PB line is to slap an Intel Inside or Centrino sticker (http://support.intel.com/support/processors/tools/ctu/sb/img/centrinorgb300.png) on it.
I'm betting that the Intel Inside sticker DOES NOT wind up on Apples. It would take away from the sleek, refined, professional appearance and I bet Steve worked that out in his deal with them.

[broken_keyboard]

It's nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.

Haha! That's great, I'll remember that one. However the IA32 architecture isn't complete crap, it's quite clever how th3y added the 32-bit stuff without breaking anything. Of course it will never be as clean as something designed as 32-bit from scratch.

[broken_keyboard]

I'm betting that the Intel Inside sticker DOES NOT wind up on Apples. It would take away from the sleek, refined, professional appearance and I bet Steve worked that out in his deal with them.

Exactly. Macs will still be Macs, but they will also be available as a sleek type of hardware for PC users like Alienware. Alienware don't use stickers I believe...

[broken_keyboard]

I just realised that Apple can basically no longer compare their hardware performance to PC's, since they will be using the same hardware! :eek:

Ja... but since it is the same hardware, it will be pretty clear which OS imposes the highest overhead on apps. And I suspect it will be OS X, as a consequence of it's extra security. However that is a price I'm willing to pay...

[Mr Maui]

as a public company doesnt apple have to ask its shareholders before doing something like this?

and if they think it will make their stock collapse for next year or so, cant they tell apple to reverse this decision?

i just dont know what percentage of apple is publiclly owned these days, can anyone answer that?
A public company does not have to ask the shareholders if they can change the direction or initiative of the company any more than the government has to ask taxpayers if they can increase their taxes. If stockholders do not like the new direction of the company ... then SELL ... in the same way that if Citizens do not like the job that the government is doing ... ELECT someone else. It is the job of the Board of Directors to decide the direction of the company and the goal is to keep making money for the stockholders. Are bad decisions ever made? Of course. But I doubt they are made with the desire to kill the company and destroy the stockholders (and I'm not talking about deceptive accounting like Enron and the like).

[Platform]

You forget that Microsoft is running an NT-based system on the PowerPC Xbox 360....

You forget that Microsoft's NT-based Windows CE is supported on ARM, MIPS and x86 processors....

You forget that NT has been sold and supported for MIPS, PowerPC and Alpha processors....

You forget that XP and Windows 2003 are currently sold and supported on x86, x64 and Itanium processors....

Microsoft has always had NT running on multiple platforms.

Don't you suspect that somewhere in Redmond there are Windows XP systems running on PowerMac G5 systems? The expense of keeping these alternate architectures running would be a drop in the bucket for Microsoft....

OFFT

How did you get your 'tar' to be 110x129 Pixles :eek: :eek: :eek: I want too :D

[B_Gates]

Interesting article. The Author points out that the Intel & Apple working together is really a move to topple Microsoft

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

[latintraps]

Damn! You beat me to it B_Gates!! :)

I never thought of it THIS way:

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

[Stella]

Interesting article. The Author points out that the Intel & Apple working together is really a move to topple Microsoft

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

I haven't read the article - I should - but I cannot see why it is in Intel's interest to attempt to topple microsoft. if microsoft were to suddenly disappear tomorrow - there goes intel's profits.

( btw - if microsoft were to suddenly 'disappear' - it doesn't mean everyone would buy apple.. )


I doubt whether the attempt would work anyway.

[Bobak]

Interesting article. The Author points out that the Intel & Apple working together is really a move to topple Microsoft

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

that is very interesting.

[hoppo99]

Interesting article. The Author points out that the Intel & Apple working together is really a move to topple Microsoft

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

The article raised some interesting points but got increasingly far fetched. Intel buying Apple? I'll believe when I see it. But then again I said that before Steve's Keynote... Realistically though it won't happen at least not for a longtime.

What remains clear though is that a lot of people are missing the point of the switch. Today the G5 is great but Apple obviously thinks and has no doubt seen information to the effect that it is likely to be overtaken by Intel in the future. That together with the fact that the laptop line is languishing somewhat with the inability to get a G5 in a notebook is the real reason that Apple has chosen to use Intel processors. Steve wants to keep the Mac great and Intel will help him do it.

With regards to Microsoft, it is likely that this deal makes sense for Intel because it keeps all their eggs from being in the Windows basket. If the Mac gets more market share Intel stands to benefit from that as well as being able to innovate free of the shackles imposed by Windows.

[ioinc]

It would be great marketing to fanboys but...

It is based not on Intel's P4 but the CISC junkpile called PIII.

Pentium M for dummies

I've run the Pentium M. It's slow, UNRELIABLE, and a piece of junk.

You are obviously in the minority with this opinion.



The only reason he is in a minority with this opinion is because over the life of this rumor the message board opinion has changed to fall in line with Apple dogma.

When it was just a rumor, people all thought it was the worst idea possible.
Then when Steve (who apparently can do no wrong announces it) the opinion changes.

Makes you wonder how much original thought is going on here, and how much is just blind support for the platform we all love. (including me.... who has used a mac since they originally came out)

[pont]

You forget that Microsoft is running an NT-based system on the PowerPC Xbox 360....

I would love to know where you read this, from what I have heard microsoft does not yet have an OS for the Xbox360

[hoppo99]

if microsoft were to suddenly disappear tomorrow - there goes intel's profits.

( btw - if microsoft were to suddenly 'disappear' - it doesn't mean everyone would buy apple.. )

You're missing the point. Microsoft isn't going to disappear tomorrow therefore there is little point in using that in an argument. Sure Intel gets most of its business from Windows PC sales and it is hardly going to that at risk. However just in case that were to change, which is a possibility with the resurgence of the Mac and the advent of Linux, Intel has it's fingers in more than one the pies. They are no longer has directly tied to Microsoft's fortunes as they were which can only be a good thing for Intel.

[pont]

The average user only has one alternative to Mac - and that is Windows. I still think that Linux, while enjoying a sizable install-base, its still a non-alternative to the average soccer-mom.

Have to disagree with you there my mother is using mandrake linux currently as her primary operating system ( she has a laptop as well as her desktop but I don't see her using it ), Linux is ok for people who are power users or users that don't want to install alot of crap. The only real confusing thing about linux is installing stuff.( lack of easly usable package management)

[hoppo99]

The only reason he is in a minority with this opinion is because over the life of this rumor the message board opinion has changed to fall in line with Apple dogma.

When it was just a rumor, people all thought it was the worst idea possible.
Then when Steve (who apparently can do no wrong announces it) the opinion changes.

Makes you wonder how much original thought is going on here, and how much is just blind support for the platform we all love. (including me.... who has used a mac since they originally came out)

Whilst you are right to some extent some of the change of opinion is due to Steve's reassurances over the ease of transistion and Rosetta. Point taken though as I've said before on these forums, a lot of people's opinions are clouded by as you say "blind support" of the platform.

[ailleur]

The only reason he is in a minority with this opinion is because over the life of this rumor the message board opinion has changed to fall in line with Apple dogma.

When it was just a rumor, people all thought it was the worst idea possible.
Then when Steve (who apparently can do no wrong announces it) the opinion changes.

Makes you wonder how much original thought is going on here, and how much is just blind support for the platform we all love. (including me.... who has used a mac since they originally came out)


No, it has changed since mac users dont know anything about the line of cpu intel offers, and since this rumor turned out to be true, they actually took some time to find out what intel was about and found out it was pretty damn good, whilst he did not.

The people who still claim the move to intel will not benifit the performance are the mac users who want the bragging rights to say they use a "different" type of cpu.

I think the blind support is a lot more important on your side of the fence, where the g5 is still the greatest thing on the planet and nothing can take its place.

[pont]

I guess its not really enough time to wait, but it still seems that apples are selling at insane prices on ebay

wile it does seem the old ibooks (i got an 800mhz for 1200 last year) have droped off heaps..

600 for a 1.02ghz

[hoppo99]

No, it has changed since mac users dont know anything about the line of cpu intel offers, and since this rumor turned out to be true, they actually took some time to find out what intel was about and found out it was pretty damn good, whilst he did not.

The people who still claim the move to intel will not benifit the performance are the mac users who want the bragging rights to say they use a "different" type of cpu.

That is true but ioinc has a point. As with everything there are definitely a combination of factors here.

[Yvan256]

Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside. :)

Did people call a "Mac 68K" any different than a "Mac G3"? Then a "Mac Intel" is still a "Mac".

[pont]

No, it has changed since mac users dont know anything about the line of cpu intel offers, and since this rumor turned out to be true, they actually took some time to find out what intel was about and found out it was pretty damn good, whilst he did not.

The people who still claim the move to intel will not benifit the performance are the mac users who want the bragging rights to say they use a "different" type of cpu.

That could be true, but in reality IBM have much faster POWER processors then intel currently does, But the power processors take much to much power for anything equivilent to a laptop and really to much for a consumer desktop, (I heard some insane 1000's of watts for the duel POWER5 servers that IBM produce)..

The PowerPC is a damn fine chip, and it damn well still has bragging rights, but there is no way your going to stick next generation PowerPC's in a laptop.

They are a great CPU or they wouldn't be in all the next gen consoles, good CPUs for laptops, they are not

[pont]

Originally Posted by Mr Maui
Is there any chance we can refer to the new Macs as Macs instead of Mactels or Macintels. It makes them sound cheap and sarcastic like the Wintel label. My Macs will always be Macs regardless of the chip inside.

A good conjunction of the two words is Nipple :)

[Gasu E.]

Fanboy... Why do you cry, Fanboy?

Apple hurts us. Jobses tricks us.

Of course he did. I told you he was tricksy. I told you he was false.

Jobses is our friend... our friend.

Jobses betrayed us.

No, the processor is not it’s business. Still OS Xssss! Leave us alone!

Filthy little Jobses. He stole it from us. Myyy PowerPRECIOUSSSSSSS!!!

[ioinc]

No, it has changed since mac users dont know anything about the line of cpu intel offers, and since this rumor turned out to be true, they actually took some time to find out what intel was about and found out it was pretty damn good, whilst he did not.



Good to know that the first batch of posts are based on a total lack ok knowledge, from a people who were not willing to take the time to 'find out what intel was all about'.

Glad there were 60 pages of opinions on that.

[Mr Maui]

Did people call a "Mac 68K" any different than a "Mac G3"? Then a "Mac Intel" is still a "Mac".
That's my point. Why are we using words like Macintel or Mactel or Intelimac. Why not just Mac? :)

[slffl]

Man I am so pumped for a 17" AlBook with High Def display and Pentium M that's able to nativaly run windows!!! I hope powerbooks are the first and not the last in the switch.

[pont]

Originally Posted by Yvan256
Did people call a "Mac 68K" any different than a "Mac G3"? Then a "Mac Intel" is still a "Mac".

Not entirly true really

Power Mac
Power Book

so perhaps it should be called

Pentium Mac

[ailleur]

Good to know that the first batch of posts are based on a total lack ok knowledge, from a people who were not willing to take the time to 'find out what intel was all about'.

Glad there were 60 pages of opinions on that.

Prey tell which pentium m review youve read. My guess is none, prooving my point, because if you HAD read one youd see it kills both pentium EE and athlon FX, which, in their turn, are faster than the fastest g5 available.
a>b>c -> a>c.

[ioinc]

Prey tell which pentium m review youve read. My guess is none, prooving my point, because if you HAD read one youd see it kills both pentium EE and athlon FX, which, in their turn, are faster than the fastest g5 available.
a>b>c -> a>c.


I don't think it is possible for you to have missed the point of my inital post by a greater distance..... go back about 3 posts are re-read it.

[Mr Maui]

Not entirly true really

Power Mac
Power Book

so perhaps it should be called

Pentium Mac
True, but Mactel has a "cheap" and "sarcastic" sound to it like "Wintel" that Mac users have used for years to minimize PCs with Windows to a level below Apple. We as Mac users have used Wintel sarcastically for so long, because of the Windows-Intel union, that using Mactel sort of has that same effect or feel. JMO

I will always just own a "Mac" regardless of the chip inside (Moto/IBM/Intel/AMD).

[B_Gates]

That could be true, but in reality IBM have much faster POWER processors then intel currently does, But the power processors take much to much power for anything equivilent to a laptop and really to much for a consumer desktop, (I heard some insane 1000's of watts for the duel POWER5 servers that IBM produce)..

The PowerPC is a damn fine chip, and it damn well still has bragging rights, but there is no way your going to stick next generation PowerPC's in a laptop.

They are a great CPU or they wouldn't be in all the next gen consoles, good CPUs for laptops, they are not

It's not a damn fine chip if you can't put the thing in any laptops & you need a liquid cooling system to keep it from burning up. I'm sure the Intel processors could keep up or pass the IBM in performances if it were over clocked to the point that it ran as hot as the IBM.

[pont]

Prey tell which pentium m review youve read. My guess is none, prooving my point, because if you HAD read one youd see it kills both pentium EE and athlon FX, which, in their turn, are faster than the fastest g5 available.
a>b>c -> a>c.


Matlab Benchmark (http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jmandel/matlab/matlab_benchmark.html)

matlab (program for doing maths stuff (had to use it in engineering not much fun), but here are some bench marks, one second THE PENTIUM M gets OWNED even by a Power 4 running AIX 5.1, well it dosn't really get owned, but it dosn't own

But as intel goes, its sweet (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-10.html)

Just chuck this power 5 benchmark in for the hell of it (http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=65000325)

[pont]

It's not a damn fine chip if you can't put the thing in any laptops & you need a liquid cooling system to keep it from burning up. I'm sure the Intel processors could keep up or pass the IBM in performances if it were over clocked to the point that it ran as hot as the IBM.

Difference being that it runs that hot and its stable you wouldn't use an over clocked intel for a server, You would use a power 5.

[pont]

True, but Mactel has a "cheap" and "sarcastic" sound to it like "Wintel" that Mac users have used for years to minimize PCs with Windows to a level below Apple. We as Mac users have used Wintel sarcastically for so long, because of the Windows-Intel union, that using Mactel sort of has that same effect or feel. JMO

I will always just own a "Mac" regardless of the chip inside (Moto/IBM/Intel/AMD).

LOL very true and Mac OS X is a damn fine operating system, I guess its just dissapointing that IBM couldn't make a powerpc (other then the cell) with low power consumption (sony says the cell has low power consumption :P it should have the power core in it isn't exceedingly powerful)

[AidenShaw]

I would love to know where you read this, from what I have heard microsoft does not yet have an OS for the Xbox360
Yahoo! for "xbox 360" "operating system" and you'll find the consensus that it's an evolution of the NT-based Xbox OS.

Considering the ties with XP Media Center Edition, and the need for 64-bit and SMP support - it would make sense that it's a parallel fork of the NT codebase.

My point, however, was just that Microsoft has a lot of experience with multiple hardware platforms for NT. To dismiss Windows as "stuck on x86" is silly.

[B_Gates]

Difference being that it runs that hot and its stable you wouldn't use an over clocked intel for a server, You would use a power 5.


How do you know that the G5 is not over clocked? It probably is since it produces so much heat that a liquid cooling system is needed at the higher clock speeds.

[pont]

How do you know that the G5 is not over clocked? It probably is since it produces so much heat that a liquid cooling system is needed at the higher clock speeds.

Im not talking about a G5 im talking about a POWER 5.

Originally Posted by pont
Not entirly true really

Power Mac
Power Book

so perhaps it should be called

Pentium Mac

Just to correct my self, I have an m68k powerbook in the corner of my room therefor the naming has nothing to do with the processor.

Yahoo! for "xbox 360" "operating system" and you'll find the consensus that it's an evolution of the NT-based Xbox OS.

While it hasn't been decided its definatly a fair bet, I mean they arnt about to put windows CE on it and they abandoned the win 9x codebase ages ago but i doubt it will be windows NT 4 (the last windows to run on a PowerPC) its more likly to be longhorn ported to the powerpc (I think it would be easyer to port longhorn then to attempt to uterlize an old code base and get it up to standard with a moden os)

Plus the power arch has changed alot since 1997 ? 1996 somewhere around there

My point, however, was just that Microsoft has a lot of experience with multiple hardware platforms for NT. To dismiss Windows as "stuck on x86" is silly.

Very true

[abluesky]

I thought this links was very interesting. It is from SETI and rates processor by efficiency. Processing efficiency is defined as the number of CPU Cycles required to perform one FLOP, abbreviated CpF, with lower numbers corresponding to higher efficiencies and vice versa.

The top three chips were all Intel. But the Intel Pentium M was third and only beaten by Intel Itanium and Intel Itanium 2.

http://www.cox-internet.com/setispy/efficiency.htm

Again, the Pentium M looks like a very high performance chip.

[pont]

Alpha 21264B
Alpha 21264A

Its amazing that they are third from the top, Havent been hearing much about alpha production for years

Also quite strange that the AMD Opteron gets beaten by the AMD Athlon 64

even wearder is the fact that the Pentium Pro is apparently faster then a Pentium 4 EE seems abit suspect, Unless intel decided the pentium pro was much too powerful for 1996 and take it slow for 8 or so years ?!

[iMeowbot]

matlab (program for doing maths stuff (had to use it in engineering not much fun), but here are some bench marks, one second THE PENTIUM M gets OWNED even by a Power 4 running AIX 5.1, well it dosn't really get owned, but it dosn't own
A POWER4 at 1.3 GHz burns at 115 watts too. I ain't puttin' that on my lap :D

[pont]

A POWER4 at 1.3 GHz burns at 115 watts too. I ain't puttin' that on my lap :D

Neither would I, I would love to have a Power5 workstation (doubt I could get hold of the money) but untill the cell chip arives in the PS3 I have my duel opterons to keep me company.

If the Cell chip is as good as it is rumored, im ganna have a PS3 with linux on it :)

[pont]

Just run into the coolest google advertisment ever

Win a Mac mini and i-pod
Plus a stunning Apple display, Office for Mac, keyboard & mouse
www.microsoft.com.au/minimate

one thing i hate for mac is microsoft office, its unusable and very lame compared to its pc eqivilent

[Silver Apple]

Why not a play with the letter X as in Mac OsX and X-86

So:

Mini X
XMac
Xbook
Powerbook X
PowerMac X

Check this article about Intel's plan to release Quad Cores for late 2007!!
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23748

Also I read somewhere (will look for link) that the quad core desktop cpus planned by Intel which will use the Pentium M technology .... is targeted to consume under 140W of total power !!!! Thats less than a single core Pentium4 (160 - 200W) or a 2.7GHZ G5 (140W ??) *** Can you imagine the possibilities here for a Quad Core 64bit PowerMac with hyperthreading for a high-end workstation!!! And it won't need a friggin nuclear water tower cooler to boot!!!!

Cheers! :)

[jcgerm]

What you talkin' 'bout Willis? :-)

The memory model presented to the programmer (32 or 64 bit) is independent of the amount of physical memory. Even when coding is assembly you still don't use physical addresses, but rather you just address the model.

Yes, but eventually some part of the system addresses the memory, and there is where you see the advantage. If you have less than 4 GB of memory, you're not going to see an advantage from explicitly having a 64 bit chip. Also, in assembly you directly access the memory. You have 64 bits of address space to work with, so if you only deal with 32 bits of the 64, there's no real reason to have 64 in the first place.

[pont]

Check this article about Intel's plan to release Quad Cores for late 2007!!
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23748

Does sound awsome, Im personlly looking forwald to affordable cell workstations, If there as good as they sound they could make toshiba ibm and sony alot of money and be bloody awesome, Im just hoping it turns out that way

apparently according to play.com the xbox 360 will be released on 29/11/05 witch will feature a tri core PowerPC running at 3.2ghz (www.xbox.com), I perviously heard 3.6ghz, but i think this is a farly accurate source. Microsoft have made interesting clames that this chip will be able to beat the 3.2ghz cell chip in the PS3 i am doubtful

[tdewey]

Its amazing that they are third from the top, Havent been hearing much about alpha production for years

Also quite strange that the AMD Opteron gets beaten by the AMD Athlon 64

even wearder is the fact that the Pentium Pro is apparently faster then a Pentium 4 EE seems abit suspect, Unless intel decided the pentium pro was much too powerful for 1996 and take it slow for 8 or so years ?!


Not faster, more efficient. P4EE has many, many, many times the clock cycles of the Pro so even though the Pro is much more efficient the P4EE still chews it up like a big dog with a new rawhide dog toy [you really need to have now or have owned a truly big dog to appreciate this metaphor].

The Alpha may be gone, but some of it lives on in the Itanium (same crew designed both, IIRC).

T

[Jmitch]

You know I really do think this is a good move for Apple. I think this is what needed to happen for a long time and since it finally has I think Apple is in it's best position yet. Go Apple.

[Jmitch]

I guess my main question is will Apple continue to sell PowerPC models of all their hardware? What about portables? Does this mean there will be no PowerBook G5? Does this mean the G5 will never reach the 3.0ghz line? There are so many unanswered questions...

[Manzana]

Why not a play with the letter X as in Mac OsX and X-86

So:

Mini X
XMac
Xbook
Powerbook X
PowerMac X


oh no! i hope this type of naming ends soon. everything is freakin x this or that trying to sound extreme. hopefully we go straight to "11" already.

[Underbelly]

I think you are misising the big picture. Intel has hatted Microsoft for years. Microsoft has pushed intel around. Intel plans on my Apple and together with Steve Jobs, the 2 will finally win the war on Mocrosoft. Steve wil than leave and go back to Pixar or Pixar/Sony whatever that ends up to be.

This is what Jobs has always wanted. He's still bitter about Windows even all these years later. He is also bitter about being forced out of Apple when it still had a chance of completing with Microsoft.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

[MacinDoc]

Does this mean there will be no PowerBook G5?
Yes.

Does this mean the G5 will never reach the 3.0ghz line?
No. I imagine there will be some increase in the clock speed of the G5 or its successors in the next 2 years before the Power Mac switches over to Intel...

...unless IBM is so upset about losing the Apple contract that they stop all PPC development and production, in which case Apple is in trouble...

[pont]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html

Since this artical has was posted on slashdot yesterday i have seen it mentoned on this fourm ~4 times :P tis a popular one

think you are misising the big picture. Intel has hatted Microsoft for years. Microsoft has pushed intel around. Intel plans on my Apple and together with Steve Jobs, the 2 will finally win the war on Mocrosoft.

and could someone please explain how a MacOSX running on intel will
suddenly dethrown microsoft. Unless apple propose to give you a choice of hardware to run it on (not just apple boxes) it will be pritty much the same as before for maket share.

[jr0977]

Here we go, 50 pages of misguided ***** of how -
- intel sucks
- intel means viruses
- people don't want macs to get over 5% market share.
- macs will be Dell quality machines
- Apple should have gone with IBM's (!!!???)
- apple making osx available on all PCs
- the final demise of Macs

plus other crap that people invent.

Very little insight and factual posts ( judging from the other posts )

Sorry, I'm being pessimistic.

You obviously know nothing about processors and computers. Chips don't create viruses, programming in operating systems do. Apple will keep producing high quality machines, they always have, this isn't changing. If anything its making it better. And last, most people do want Apple to have a larger market share. IBM wasn't doing justice for technology advancement.

[Photorun]

You obviously know nothing about processors and computers. Chips don't create viruses, programming in operating systems do. Apple will keep producing high quality machines, they always have, this isn't changing. If anything its making it better. And last, most people do want Apple to have a larger market share. IBM wasn't doing justice for technology advancement.

Um, dude, he was joking, reread his post, he's saying 50 pages of MISGUIDED info, he's not saying what you just responded to.

Read. Think. Post.

[j_maddison]

Man you need to read stuff before you spout off your dribble. :mad: No one is suggesting that the Pentium-M will be used in the power mac. Only the Pentium-M's technologies will be applied to future much more powerful chips for use in the PM's and PB's for that matter.

I disagree with you, I dont think we'll see a Pentium M derrivative in the Powermacs. I think we'll see something that has been developed from the Xeon processor line in the Powermacs. I'm sure I've read about quad cores somewhere.

The fact is the dual G5 Powermac doesnt compete against any P4 configed boxes, they compete against the Xeons and Optrons of this world. When a dual mac comes up against a P4 it kills the thing.

Personally I'm a powerbook user, so I'm all sweaty palmed at the prospect of a dual core Powerbook!! Just hope they dont screw us 12" Powerbook users over and give us some slow stripped down version of hte 15' Powerbook. I'm also hoping that the next 12" Powerbook will be ridiculously thin and weigh next to nothing!

Jay
p.s apologies for poor spelling, just did a clean install and haven't loaded word back onto my PB yet.

[latintraps]

Just keep calling it a Mac. We've never called it a Macibm. Just Mac

Just Mac
Just Mac